publish_knowledge_article

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is helpful, but it doesn't describe what publishing entails (e.g., state transition) or any potential side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It doesn't explain the return value or the publish state transition, and there is no mention of potential errors or valid article states, leaving some ambiguity about expected 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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter sys_id as 'System ID of the article to publish', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'publish' and the resource 'draft knowledge article', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_knowledge_article, update_knowledge_article, and retire_knowledge_article. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a key prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and implies the use case of publishing drafts, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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