publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return behavior ('Returns the send outcome (an acknowledgement, or the endpoint's reply for request/reply endpoints)') and that the target is inline and route-independent. It says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or side effects of publishing.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the endpoint shape, the message/messages choice, and the return value. Reasonably tight with no filler, though the parenthetical example is somewhat long.

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 4-parameter publish tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the inline publisher format, the message vs messages choice, and the return value. It omits error/failure behavior, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 the schema already documents `publisher`, `message`/`messages`, and the payload/metadata fields. The description restates the `publisher` shape with an example and the message/metadata conventions that the schema's InputMessage and Endpoint defs already provide, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('one message or a batch of messages to any endpoint'), and the phrase 'independent of routes' implicitly distinguishes it from the route-based sibling route_messages. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.

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 gives parameter-level usage ('Provide either `message` or `messages`') and notes the endpoint is independent of routes, which implies a context. But it never states when to choose this tool over route_messages or the other siblings, so usage is only implied.

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