Publish a draft

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true by explaining exactly what happens: the post becomes publicly visible, emails cannot be unsent, and confirm=true is mandatory. This gives an agent a clear model of side effects and guardrails, matching the destructive and non-idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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, each carrying distinct and necessary information: the core action, the email side effect, the confirmation requirement, and the non-email alternative. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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?

Given the destructive nature of the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: immediate publication, public visibility, subscriber email side effects, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and the non-email path. It leaves little for an agent to infer before calling this tool safely.

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 all parameters. The description reinforces the send and confirm behavior in plain language, but it mostly restates what the schema already says. It adds marginal value by tying send=true to subscriber emails and confirm=true to execution refusal, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Publish a draft immediately,' which clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes the behavior from scheduling by emphasizing immediacy, and the draft resource is distinct from note publishing tools like publish_note.

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 for using the tool: publishing a draft right away, with a direct choice between emailing subscribers (send true) or going live silently (send false). It does not explicitly name alternative tools like schedule_draft or publish_note, but the 'immediately' wording and draft resource make the intended use obvious. No exclusionary guidance is given, which prevents a 5.

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