publish_draft

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 the key side effects: the post goes live, it may email subscribers, and the action is irreversible. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent essential behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: action, side effects, irreversibility.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects, including irreversible consequences. It could mention the return value, but given the lack of output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already has complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the email risk but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.

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 publishes a draft, making it live on the web, and distinguishes the optional email behavior. It also contrasts with siblings like update_draft and delete_draft by noting publishing is irreversible.

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?

It provides context on when to use: to make a draft public, with a caution that publishing cannot be undone. It also explains that `send` should only be true when email is intended, since email cannot be recalled. This is good guidance, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives beyond noting the absence of an unpublish tool.

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