Publish Document

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'This changes sharing state,' which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and clarifies the mutation. It also communicates reversibility via 'revoke_doc,' which the annotations do not. It doesn't mention idempotency (annotation says non-idempotent) or permission/auth requirements, leaving a minor gap.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the reversibility note second.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the annotations plus schema cover safety and parameters. The description still lacks any note on who can publish or what makes a document publicly reachable, but for a three-parameter, well-annotated tool it is nearly complete.

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 100% with 3 parameters, so the schema already documents docId, workspaceId, and the Page/Edgeless mode enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Make a document publicly accessible through AFFiNE public sharing'), which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It also names the sibling tool 'revoke_doc' as the inverse operation, so it is distinguishable from related tools without opening a schema.

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 explicitly points to 'revoke_doc' for disabling public access later, giving clear usage context and a named alternative. However, it doesn't state preconditions or when publication should be avoided (e.g. permission requirements, sensitive docs), so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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