publish_cheese

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the main side effect—'appears in the feed'—and implies a draft-to-published transition, but it does not state whether the action is irreversible, what permissions are required, or how non-draft cheeses are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the action and the outcome clause contribute directly to understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action, object state, and result, making it mostly usable. It is slightly incomplete because it leaves usage alternatives and behavioral caveats such as reversibility and permissions implicit.

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 never explicitly names cheeseId. However, 'publish a draft cheese' implies that the sole parameter identifies the draft cheese to publish, adding state context beyond the bare schema, though format and validation details remain unspecified.

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 specifies the verb 'publish', the resource 'cheese', and the state transition 'draft' to 'feed', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling publish_template and preview/create actions. Even without naming a sibling, the resource and verb combination is unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear trigger: use this when a cheese is in draft state and should become visible in the feed. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but for a one-parameter publish tool the stated context is sufficient.

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