publish_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (publishing) and return value ('shaped template with published=true'), which implies a mutation. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible (though 'unpublish_template' exists), or any side effects like notifications. The description adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return value, and an example. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains purpose, usage, and return value. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could better address permissions or reversibility. The sibling 'unpublish_template' hints at reversibility, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal param semantics through the example '{ id: "tpl_abc" }', which clarifies the expected format. With 0 parameters, baseline would be 4, but here the example provides slight extra value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark a template as published'), the resource ('template'), and the purpose ('so it can be referenced by send_email'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_template' (creation), 'update_template' (editing), and 'unpublish_template' (opposite action).

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'after creating or editing a template you have validated and want available for sending.' This clearly indicates the prerequisite state and intent, differentiating from alternatives like 'create_template' (initial creation) or 'update_template' (editing without publishing).

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