publish_article

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 does not disclose that publishing is user-visible and effectively irreversible, what happens if both boolean flags are omitted or both set, or any auth/permission requirement. The '(auto-save)' note is unexplained.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. But it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, and the ambiguous '(auto-save)' clause does not clearly earn 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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the flag interaction, the default behavior when neither flag is set, and the effect of publishing. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome.

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 both asDraft and publish are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the marginal framing that draft mode preserves the article, with no detail on flag precedence or defaults.

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 states a specific verb (publish) plus the alternative outcome (keep as draft) for the article resource, so an agent can tell it apart from create_article or fill_article_body. However, the parenthetical '(auto-save)' muddies the purpose, and there is no explicit differentiation from the create_article sibling in the same workflow.

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 call this versus create_article, open_article_editor, or the fill_* tools, and no indication of prerequisites (e.g., whether an article must already exist). The publish/draft choice is implied by the name only.

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