publish_edit

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) declare this is a non-destructive write, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it refuses on failed checks unless overridden, it pushes the version onto following posts unless the user picked one, it auto-answers and resolves review comments, and it persists the recipe. It does not cover idempotency/retry semantics or the concurrency interaction fully beyond the go_back hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and zero filler sentences, but the body is one dense run-on with stacked semicolon clauses that takes effort to parse. Content is efficient; formatting could be clearer.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially covers returns by noting the render's review is for the next version and that review.note should be followed. For a 6-parameter tool with side effects across posts, comments, and recipes, an agent has nearly everything needed, though the shape of the publish result itself is only implied.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: accept is for 'a fail you meant' with rule/why semantics, replies behave 'like reply_comment' with fixed_in/resolve set automatically, and note is the changelog line. That is more than the schema alone conveys.

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 and resource — saving a checked render as the next version at a concrete path (edits/<name>-vN.mp4) along with its recipe — and names the adjacent tools it is not (set_post, reply_comment, render_edit). An agent can distinguish it from render_edit, check_edit, and set_post without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it once per version', describes the refusal condition on failed checks and the accept escape hatch, and routes to the alternative ('To show another file on a post, call set_post media=... after'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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