publish_entry

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds critical behavioral details: version-specific implementation differences (v5 vs v4) and the consequence of making the entry 'publicly visible.' This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then version-specific details, then a usage tip. No filler words; every sentence contributes new information. 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?

Given the tool has version-specific behavior and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, version behavior, and how to find eligible entries. It does not repeat output schema details, and no obvious gaps remain for a confident invocation.

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%, and the schema descriptions are already clear. The description only adds the context that locale is needed for i18n-enabled types, which is already in the schema description. Thus, minimal added value 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's purpose: 'Publish a draft content entry to make it publicly visible.' It distinguishes from siblings like unpublish_entry (reverse) and discard_draft (discard without publishing) by explicitly mentioning the draft-to-public transition and version-specific behavior.

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 actionable guidance: 'Use list_entries with status='draft' to find unpublished entries that need publishing.' This helps the agent understand the prerequisite step. It implies when to use (for draft entries) and when not (for non-drafts), but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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