Queue approved publish job

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool may create output PDFs, indicating a side effect beyond just queueing. It also emphasizes the need for an 'exact approved' plan, implying validation behavior. This is valuable since the annotations only specify readOnlyHint false without detailing the nature of side effects.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose in a front-loaded manner. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and each phrase adds meaning—'exact' signals approval constraints, 'may create output PDFs' notes potential side effects.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context without needing to detail return values. It covers the key prerequisite (staged plan) and the action (queue), while the schema and annotations handle the rest. It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites, but it is overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 4 parameters covering 100% of their semantics. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema's existing information, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Queue an exact approved staged plan for PDF publishing.' It uses a specific verb ('queue'), identifies the resource ('approved staged plan'), and specifies the purpose ('PDF publishing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stage_publish_job (staging) and queue_publish_batch (batch queueing).

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_publish_batch or when not to use it. The 'exact approved staged plan' language implies prerequisites, but no direct usage instructions or exclusions are given.

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