publish_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool changes graph status, published graphs can still be modified, and version management is recommended. However, it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if graph is already published) or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extensive sections (Prerequisites, Usage recommendations, Return data) that, while helpful, make it somewhat verbose. Some sentences in the usage recommendations could be condensed without losing value, affecting efficiency.

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 complexity (status-changing operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, prerequisites, usage, and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling or side effects (e.g., impact on related resources), which would enhance completeness for this type of tool.

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 has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (graphId). The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but it strongly implies the graphId parameter through context (e.g., 'Graph must exist and be in draft status'). Given the low schema coverage and single parameter, the description compensates well by clarifying what the parameter represents.

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 specific action ('Publish a knowledge graph') and the effect ('changing its status from draft to published'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_graph (creation) or list_graphs (listing). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with explicit outcome.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (when a graph exists in draft status) and includes detailed prerequisites (graph must be in draft, content should be complete) and usage recommendations (e.g., first use list_graphs to check status). It clearly distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on status transition.

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