akb_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a shareable URL without authentication, supports features like expiration and password protection, and distinguishes between absolute and relative URLs. Missing details about permissions or potential side effects, but sufficient for typical use.

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, front-loaded with purpose and usage logic. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Structure is clear: first sentence covers inputs, second covers outputs.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key scenarios and return behavior. It could be more explicit about error cases or the full response structure, but it provides a solid understanding of expected inputs and outputs.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters relate to resource type (e.g., uri for doc/file, query_sql for table_query) and by recommending the `public_url_full` field. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 creates a public share URL for documents, table queries, or files. It specifies the required inputs for each resource type, e.g., 'For a document or file, pass the resource `uri`. For a table query, pass the SQL plus `vault`.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like akb_unpublish.

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 explicit instructions on when to use each parameter based on resource type. It also advises preferring `public_url_full` over `public_url`. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or clarify when another tool (e.g., akb_set_public) might be more appropriate.

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