collections_items_create_item_live

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 discloses the key behavioral trait: creating and publishing to the live site in one operation, which is a significant side effect. However, it does not mention permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the item's draft state, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place—there is no padding or redundant information.

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?

The tool has two parameters, one nested array, and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose but does not mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., valid collection_id), or edge cases like slug conflicts. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more operational context would be needed for full 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 50%, with the 'request' object lacking a top-level description. The tool description does not add any detail about the request structure or how collection_id and request are used, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. The nested schema fields have some descriptions, but the main parameter semantics remain unclear.

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 uses specific verbs 'create and publish' and identifies the resource 'new items in a CMS collection' with the scope 'directly to the live site'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool collections_items_create_item (likely draft/pending) and other CMS item tools.

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 phrase 'directly to the live site' clearly implies this is for immediate publication, providing strong contextual usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like collections_items_create_item (for drafts) or collections_items_publish_items (to publish existing items), so exclusions are missing.

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