publish_content

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Publish a draft' implies a state change, but it does not disclose consequences like making the content publicly visible, whether the action is reversible, or if any permission is required. It conveys a mutation but lacks details on side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with one short sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, its brevity is a trade-off: it lacks valuable context, but it does not waste words.

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?

The tool is a mutation with a simple schema (one required parameter) and no output schema or annotations. The description is minimal and does not provide expected context such as prerequisites (draft must exist), success criteria, or failure modes. Given the lack of additional structured information, the description is incomplete from a behavioral standpoint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter (e.g., the ID of the draft to publish). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag, leaving the agent to infer that 'id' refers to the draft ID.

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 action ('Publish a draft') and the resource ('draft'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_content or search_content. However, it does not specify what 'publish' entails (e.g., making content publicly visible, changing status) or what resource type it applies to beyond 'draft', but the verb and resource are specific and clear.

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 implies usage for draft content but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_content_field (which might also change content status) or prerequisites (e.g., the content must be in draft status). No explicit when-not or alternative mentions.

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