publish_contributor_network_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope and parameter constraints but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether publishing can be undone), error conditions, or return behavior. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for constraints. It is dense but each sentence adds value. A slight reduction for density could be made, but overall it is well-structured.

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 has 7 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, and no output schema. The description adds critical context for constructing the 'source' object based on 'kind'. However, it does not explain the return value or post-publish behavior, which would aid complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'kind', 'source', 'track', and 'model_id' by specifying dependencies and constraints. However, it omits descriptions for 'remark', 'competition_id', and 'parent_contributor_network_item_id', leaving those parameters unexplained.

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 'Publish a saved resource, a submitted text body, inline text, or a model reference', using a specific verb and resource types. It further distinguishes from siblings by detailing the 'kind' parameter and its associated requirements, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit conditions for each kind, including required source fields and parameter constraints like track/model_id. It states the required scope 'contributor-network.write'. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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