publish_content_type

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as prerequisites (e.g., content type must exist), side effects (e.g., makes it visible), or idempotency. The agent has no insight into what 'publish' entails.

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 very brief but critically underspecified. It lacks essential context, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary 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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the effect of publishing, possible errors, or any dependencies (e.g., environment existence), leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 67%, with spaceId and environmentId having descriptions, but contentTypeId is undocumented. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, failing to compensate for the missing schema description for contentTypeId.

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 verb 'Publish' and resource 'content type', making the basic action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like publish_entry or publish_asset, which share a similar pattern.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_content_type, update_content_type, or other publish tools). The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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