publish_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the name — operations are applied in a single publisher transaction and a rebuild is triggered exactly once — which tells the agent this is a mutating, side-effectful batch call. But it omits partial-failure behavior, expected_revision conflict handling, and the fact that this affects live published content, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 dense 13-word sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and zero filler words. It is efficient for what it covers, though it is terse relative to the tool's complexity; the resulting omissions are more appropriately penalized under contextual completeness than here.

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 complex batch mutation tool with no annotations, one sentence does not fully equip an agent: it leaves out expected_revision semantics, atomicity guarantees on partial failure, and routing guidance versus create_entry/update_entry/rebuild_feed. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the key behavioral and decision context is missing given the schema's substantial $defs complexity.

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 description was expected to compensate, and it adds nothing about the operations array or expected_revision. The schema's own embedded descriptions partly mitigate this (BatchOperation: 'One create/update/upsert operation inside publish_batch' and the detailed EntryPatch rationale), but expected_revision is entirely undocumented at both layers — the description never hints at its optimistic-concurrency role.

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 states a specific action ('Apply') and resource ('multiple creates/updates') and adds distinguishing scope: 'in one publisher transaction and rebuild once' separates it from single-entry siblings like create_entry and update_entry, and from a manual rebuild_feed call. It loses a point because it omits the 'upsert' operation that the BatchOperation schema explicitly supports, slightly understating the tool's full scope.

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 phrasing 'multiple creates/updates in one transaction and rebuild once' implies the tool is for batching several operations into a single atomic publish cycle, which implicitly contrasts with the single-entry tools in the sibling list. However, it never names an alternative, states when not to use it, or explains when to prefer publish_batch over create_entry/update_entry, leaving routing to inference.

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