Publish event

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantics the annotations cannot express: immediate fan-out to subscribers and that cache- channels persist and replay the event to future subscribers, which materially affects a publish decision.

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?

Three sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the core action and delivery behavior; the exclusivity constraint is placed last where a caller checks it before invoking. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a publish tool with no output schema, the description covers delivery, persistence/replay, and the channel selection rule, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It omits any mention of what the call returns or error behavior, but with no output schema and full annotation coverage that gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint absent from the schema: 'Pass exactly one of channel or channels.' The schema presents both as optional with no oneOf, so this mutual-exclusion rule is real value beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb (publish) and resource (event) plus the target (Apinator channels), and describes the delivery mechanism: subscribers receive it immediately, cache- channels store and replay. This clearly distinguishes it from the read/auth siblings (list_channels, get_channel, watct_channel, sign_channel_auth).

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?

Gives a clear operational rule ('Pass exactly one of channel or channels') and explains the delivery context that decides reach. There is no competing publish sibling to route against, so no explicit alternative/exclusion language is needed, but no when-not guidance is offered either.

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