publish_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that publication is gated by process-level enablement and a valid receipt matching recomputed data, which is behavioral, but it does not describe the effect of the action, return value, error behavior, or side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the critical condition. It is efficient and not verbose, though it is dense and may reduce readability. Still, it earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters, including nested objects (metadata, destinations), and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It only states preconditions and leaves agents to guess parameter meanings, return values, and error handling. This is far below the minimum needed for a complex mutation tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. It mentions 'receipt' and 'draft' conceptually but does not map them to the schema properties (id, receipt, metadata, rootDir, include, etc.). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the verb 'Publish' and implies the resource (draft) via the tool name. It adds a specific conditional context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_draft or update_draft, but it does not explicitly name the resource in the description itself.

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 gives a clear precondition ('Publish only when...') which implies when it should be used, but it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. The condition is useful but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools.

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