publish_event_with_approval

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

Describes required permissions, risk level, and approval gating, which provides some behavioral context beyond an empty annotation set. However, it does not explain what happens upon successful publication (e.g., event state change) or detail the outcome structure.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient for the agent 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?

Despite an output schema existing and no annotations, the description fails to explain the approval-related parameters or how to obtain them. The tool is complex (publish with approval), but the description lacks sufficient detail to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (event_id, approved, approval_token, approval_request_id). The approval workflow parameters are entirely opaque, leaving the agent unable to use them correctly.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'publish' and resource 'MISP event', with condition 'only when policy and approval allow'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., propose_attribute) by focusing on the publish 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?

Specifies that curator/admin-like permission is required and it is always high-risk and approval-gated. Also describes the alternative outcome (blocked/proposal result). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings.

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