Prepublish Draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not say whether invoking checks mutates the draft, whether it is idempotent, whether failures block publication, or what permissions are needed. It only restates the action.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the terseness comes at the cost of explaining 'prepublish checks'.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the single parameter is documented, but for a tool sitting among several publish variants, the description should clarify how it differs from publish_draft_checked and whether the checks are read-only.

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 coverage is 100% for the single draft_id parameter, so the schema already documents the argument. The description adds no semantics about what draft identifiers are valid or how the checks relate to that draft beyond the name, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an action ('invoke prepublish checks') on a resource ('draft'), which is more than a tautology, but 'prepublish checks' is unexplained jargon and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like publish_draft_checked or publish_draft, which plausibly also perform validation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus publish_draft, publish_draft_checked, or get_status. Given the dense cluster of publish-related siblings, the absence of any exclusion or sequencing hint leaves the agent to guess.

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