Publish Draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load: it discloses that this path publishes to a live state and lacks the confirmation and prepublish validation of the checked variant, which is a meaningful risk disclosure. It stops short of saying whether publishing is reversible or what side effects occur (e.g. default email send), though the output schema covers return shape.

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 purpose and the legacy routing are front-loaded and the text is short. The parenthetical "(Legacy compatibility interface)" is then restated as "This tool remains for backward compatibility", a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so the description only needs to cover purpose, routing and risk. It does those, but leaves out what actually changes on the draft and whether the action is reversible — the one thing an agent deciding to call a publishing mutation would want.

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 all three parameters (send, draft_id, share_automatically) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and target state ("Publish a draft to live post state"), which is precisely distinguishable from siblings like prepublish_draft and schedule_draft. It also names the near-duplicate sibling publish_draft_checked so the agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 states this tool exists only for backward compatibility and recommends publish_draft_checked instead, giving the reason (explicit confirmation and prepublish validation). That is a clear when-to-prefer-the-alternative rule, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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