workiva_publish_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'publish' means, potential side effects, or permission requirements. The publish_type enum values add slight context but not enough.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy.

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 simple param set and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It does not discuss the publication process or implications, but that is partially implied by the tool name and publish_type options.

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%, but the Args section explains each parameter and clarifies publish_type values, especially 'ownLinks (links owned by this file)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though selectedLinks is not elaborated.

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?

"Publish links in a spreadsheet, document, or presentation" clearly states the action and target resource. It is specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling link-related tools like edit_range_link or create_destination_link.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists arguments without contextual advice or exclusions.

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