syncpen_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains auto-selection and default title/status behavior but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing posts), error conditions, or rate limits. Without annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 two sentences long, directly addressing the tool's purpose and key behavior (connection auto-selection). Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the published post ID or confirmation). It also does not cover error scenarios or the implications of publishing (e.g., whether it edits an existing post or creates a new one). Given the complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), the description is somewhat incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the auto-selection logic for connectionId and default behavior for title and status, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 publishes a SyncPen document to a CMS (WordPress, Ghost, Sanity), specifying the action verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like syncpen_create (which creates a document) and syncpen_update (which modifies a document) by focusing on publishing to a connected CMS.

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 provides guidance on when to use the connectionId parameter: auto-select when only one active connection exists, otherwise pass connectionId. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the clear purpose help differentiate.

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