Publish Portal

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly stating 'idempotent' (which contradicts the idempotentHint=false annotation semantically — though the annotation seems conservative, the description explicitly claims idempotency). It also discloses the 'force' behavior and readiness-blocker override semantics. However, it doesn't clarify what happens to an already-published portal or what the readiness check involves.

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 tight single sentence plus one clause explaining force. It's front-loaded with the core intent. No wasted words. Could arguably be scored 5 but the terse style leaves out useful detail that would justify extra length.

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?

The tool is a state-changing publish operation with no output schema and no annotations carrying safety info. The description doesn't mention return format, does mention idempotency and the force flag. For a publish action, an agent would benefit from knowing what response to expect (published confirmation? portal URL?) and non-overridable blocker behavior. Given the tool's importance and 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but not complete.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. The description explains 'force' (publish despite readiness blockers), which adds meaning to that parameter. However, 'portalRef' and 'dryRun' are completely undocumented in the description — an agent wouldn't know what portalRef refers to or what dryRun does without inferring from the schema types. With 3 params and 0% coverage, the description should do more.

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 verb+resource: 'Publish a portal'. It also discloses the idempotent nature, which is a distinguishing behavioral trait. Among siblings, it's distinguished from kilango_unpublish_portal (opposite) and kilango_archive_portal, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 description mentions 'force=true to publish despite overridable readiness blockers', which gives some context about when force is needed. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs unpublish/archive tools, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., does the portal need to exist, be in a draft state?), or what readiness blockers are non-overridable. The idempotent mention is helpful but implied usage overall.

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