update_publication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of a partial update ('Only the fields you pass are changed'). However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or return format, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and main fields. The second sentence efficiently handles partial-update semantics and sourcing the required ID.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: partial update, ID source, and distinction from create. It could mention response behavior or permissions, but the provided context is sufficient for basic correct usage.

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 50%, with descriptions for brandId, domainId, description, and publicationId. The description adds meaning by grouping 'domain/routing config' (likely covering domainId, pathPrefix, routingType) and clarifying that publicationId comes from list_publications or list_blogs. It also explains partial update semantics. However, brandId is not mentioned in the description and some fields lack specific guidance beyond 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 tool's action: 'Update an existing blog publication's metadata' and enumerates specific fields (title, description, domain/routing config, layout). It explicitly distinguishes from create_publication, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear context: use this to update an existing publication, not create one. It also tells the user where to obtain publicationId (list_publications or list_blogs). It does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools like update_blog_article, but the phrase 'blog publication' vs 'blog article' sufficiently differentiates.

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