publish_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a real side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations: adding a memory hint persists the decision as permanent memory, which is meaningful for a non-idempotent mutation. Remaining gaps (delivery semantics, TTL behavior) are minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two focused usage tips. No filler, though the deprecation note could be folded into the routing sentence for tighter structure.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation patterns (summary events, memory side effect) and required-parameter details are fully carried by the schema. It is complete enough for correct invocation, missing only deeper delivery/error semantics.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description goes further by supplying the concrete shape of the nested `memory` object ({persist:true, key:'decision-name'}) even though the schema declares that object with empty properties. It also documents the special event_type value for summaries.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Publish an event to the event bus") and distinguishes itself by naming the deprecated sibling it replaces ("Replaces the deprecated publish_summary tool"). It does not differentiate from other event-related siblings like subscribe_events, but the core purpose 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?

Gives concrete when-to guidance ("For summaries, use event_type='summary'" and when to attach a memory hint) and routes agents away from the deprecated publish_summary. It stops short of stating exclusions against sibling tools such as subscribe_events or remember.

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