Publish changelog entry

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful behavior: entries propagate to three surfaces, draft=true defers publishing, and published_at schedules. It omits the subscriber-notification side effect by name, though that parameter is documented in the schema.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, then trigger condition, then the authoring and scheduling mechanics. No filler, and the highest-value information leads.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers where the entry appears, the draft/schedule paths, and content expectations. It does not mention the notify_subscribers side effect, a minor gap given the schema covers it.

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%, so the schema already defines every parameter, including draft, published_at, and notify_subscribers. The description reinforces draft and scheduling behavior and adds authoring guidance (title style, Markdown subset), but mostly restates what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a new entry to the project's Fizlog changelog') and immediately names the surfaces affected (widget, public page, RSS). This clearly distinguishes a write tool from the read-only sibling get_public_changelog.

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 a clear trigger ('Use it after shipping a feature or fix'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_public_changelog or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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