viruagent_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It discloses the 403 fallback to draft, which is important, but does not cover other aspects like authentication, idempotency, or whether it updates existing posts. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is very concise and front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but could include more detail without being verbose.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling beyond 403, or detailed fallback behavior. More context is needed for a tool of this complexity.

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 high (85%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema. A baseline of 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 clearly states the tool attempts to publish a post with title/content and falls back to draft on 403 error. While it distinguishes from siblings by mentioning draft fallback, it could be more explicit about its primary purpose versus viruagent_save_draft.

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 implies usage for publishing with automatic draft fallback, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus viruagent_save_draft or other siblings. The fallback behavior is mentioned but not compared to alternatives.

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