publish_local_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that authentication is required, but it omits critical behavioral traits such as whether publishing creates a new post or updates an existing one, how existing posts are affected, side effects, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a publishing 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the tool's role among siblings, whether it parses frontmatter, how overrides work, or what the result of publishing is. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., filePath is 'Absolute path to the local markdown file'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'markdown file', 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 clearly states the action ('Publish') and the resource ('a local markdown file as a Velog post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like write_post or edit_post, so it misses differentiation credit.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as write_post. The only additional context, 'requires authentication', is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. The description does not mention exclusions, typical workflows, or decision criteria.

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