publish_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful privacy behavior: 'Only the sanitized version is sent — the original content never leaves your machine.' However, it does not mention side effects on the draft, permissions, or error behavior.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose statement and a valuable privacy guarantee in the second. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It lacks return-value or post-publish state information, but that is a minor gap given the schema handles parameter documentation and the overall complexity is low.

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% — both draft_id and generate_article are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond linking the draft to a prior draft_post action, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'publish' and identifies the resource as 'a previously drafted post to DayBy', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like draft_post, edit_draft, update_post, and delete_post. The phrase 'previously drafted' reinforces that this action applies only to existing drafts.

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 clear context that this tool is for drafts ('previously drafted post'), implying it should be used after draft_post and before or after edit_draft. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the draft qualifier gives a strong selection signal.

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