omnipress_publish_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs automatic legal/PII de-identification, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing articles), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The absence of annotations makes this gap more significant.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key behavior. No redundancy or filler. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core function but omits important context: return values, error behavior, idempotency, and how it fits into the workflow with siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning to any parameter beyond what the schema provides, though it implicitly relates to the 'sanitize' parameter via the de-identification mention. Per the baseline rule, this scores 3.

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 ('Saves a complete, publication-ready long-form article') and the target ('to the local archive with YAML frontmatter'), and it notes the de-identification behavior. It is distinguishable from siblings (queue_post, inspect_content, list_recent) by its explicit 'save' verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with queue_post, which could be ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow (e.g., after queueing), or any conditions that would favor this tool over omnipress_queue_post or omnipress_inspect_content.

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