publish_book

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 states the primary effect but omits side effects like email notifications (the emailReaders parameter exists but is not referenced), irreversibility, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is under-disclosed and potentially misleading about consequences.

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?

A single, grammatically complete sentence with zero superfluous words. The action and object are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential details noted in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context: return values, side effects, required prerequisites, or error conditions. It does not explain what 'latest version' means or whether publishing is reversible, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it reliably.

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 only 33% (only emailReaders is documented). The description does not explain the required 'slug' or the optional 'releaseNotes' parameter, nor does it clarify how they affect publishing. It adds little meaning beyond the field names already present in 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 action (publish) and resource (book) with an explicit effect: 'making the latest version available to readers.' This distinguishes it from siblings like unpublish_book, preview_book, and publish_course without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unpublish_book, retire_book, or close_book. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a draft already existing) or conditions that should trigger publishing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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