republish_entry

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 main state transition but does not disclose side effects such as whether history is preserved, whether permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or how already-active entries are handled.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the key action word 'revive.' Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and a large sibling set, it lacks guidance on when alternatives should be preferred and what side effects to expect. It is adequate as a minimal definition but has clear gaps.

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Schema coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by implying entry_id refers to an archived/unpublished entry. It does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or the exact semantics of 'archived' versus 'unpublished,' leaving some inference to the agent.

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The description uses a specific verb ('revive') and clearly identifies both the source state ('archived/unpublished') and target state ('active feed'). This makes it easy to distinguish from reverse operations like unpublish_entry and from batch operations like publish_batch.

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 'archived/unpublished' qualifier implies when the tool should be used, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent can infer the intended use case, but not the boundary against siblings like publish_batch or correct_entry.

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