Publish Document

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating "This changes sharing state," making it clear this is a state-changing operation rather than a destructive one. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) indirectly support this, and the description explicitly names the reversible nature of 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise note on the reversal path. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundant information.

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's simplicity, the description combined with annotations and a full output schema covers the essentials: what it does, that it reverses via revoke_doc, and the state-changing nature. It does not elaborate on permissions or output details, but those are partially covered by the schema and annotations, and the description is sufficient for selection and basic usage.

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 the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function: "Make a document publicly accessible through AFFiNE public sharing." It uses a specific verb (make publicly accessible) and resource (document), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool revoke_doc by framing it as the inverse operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: "use revoke_doc to disable public access later." This makes the scope of use clear and points to the complementary tool for the reverse action.

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