create_news

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 explicitly states that the news is visible to all project members, triggers email notifications according to instance configuration, and is 'not a silent draft.' This gives valuable insight into side effects, though it does not address permission requirements or reversibility.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose, a short behavioral note, and a clean bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior (visibility, notifications), all parameters, and the distinction from a draft. It does not mention prerequisites like project existence, but this is likely implicit and does not heavily detract from completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides one-line explanations for all four parameters, but some are tautological (e.g., 'project identifier' for project_identifier, 'news title' for title). It adds meaningful distinction for 'summary line shown in the listing' and 'news body' vs 'summary,' but overall the enrichment is modest.

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 opens with 'Publish a news item in a project,' which uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('news item'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_news, get_news_item, update_news, and delete_news, establishing it as the creation/publishing operation.

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 clear context by explaining that news is visible to all project members and triggers email notifications, implying this is for published announcements rather than drafts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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