publish_knowledge_article

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, not destructive), the description only adds a prerequisite. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., status change, notifications, approval requirements). For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise and includes essential information. Slightly loses points for not using a period or more structured formatting, but still highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

As a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should specify the effect (e.g., changes article state to published) or return value. It only mentions a prerequisite, leaving the agent to assume behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for sys_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'System ID of the article to publish', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'publish' and resource 'draft knowledge article', distinguishing it from siblings like create_knowledge_article, update_knowledge_article, and retire_knowledge_article. The mention of 'draft' clarifies the input state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description states a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_knowledge_article. Usage is implied (to change draft to published) but lacks exclusions or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.