Content Publish Tool

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: deletion goes to trash (and is therefore reversible), and permission gating applies, which explains why destructiveHint=false despite a 'delete' action. It does not disclose what 'publish' actually changes (visibility state, side effects, whether unpublish is safe mid-operation) or what the call returns.

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 tight sentences: the action list first, then the permission requirement. No filler, no redundancy, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema and only coarse annotations, the definition covers the operations, the reversibility of delete, and the permission prerequisite. Remaining gaps (return value, failure modes) are minor at this complexity level.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does partially by mapping the action values to real semantics (restore = the 'undelete' enum member) and by implying 'id' is a document identifier. It does not clarify the id constraints or what happens on invalid transitions (e.g., restoring a non-trashed document).

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 names the resource (a document) and enumerates the four operations precisely — publish, unpublish, delete-to-trash, restore — which is far more specific than the generic title 'Content Publish Tool'. It implicitly separates this from create/update siblings by framing it as a state-transition tool, but never explicitly says so.

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?

Useful prerequisite guidance is given ('Requires publish_document or delete_document'), so an agent knows it needs permissions before calling. However, there is no explicit routing guidance such as 'use update for content edits' versus this tool for lifecycle changes, so the alternative-selection logic is only implied.

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