Publish or hide a sci-bot question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core state transition (private to public with a URL, or public to private), but it does not mention side effects on an existing URL, error conditions, idempotency, or permission requirements. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps 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?

One sentence, zero filler, and front-loaded with the action and outcome. It communicates the two-state behavior compactly and every word earns its place.

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 schema covers parameter formatting and the description covers the core operation, but with no annotations and no output schema, prerequisites, edge cases, and expected results are left unspecified. The tool is simple enough that this is still minimally viable, but it is not fully 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with their meanings and sources. The description adds only the notion of a public URL and ownership, not parameter-specific formats or constraints, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Publishes', 'takes it back') and a concrete resource ('an own question' with a public URL or private state). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like scibot_ask_question, scibot_cancel_question, and scibot_delete_question, since none of those handle visibility toggling.

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 makes clear that the tool applies to an existing own question and toggles its visibility between public and private. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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