publish_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Publish') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or side effects (e.g., making story publicly available). It lacks critical context 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 very concise with two brief sentences, front-loading the main action. However, it's arguably too terse given the complexity of a publishing operation with multiple parameters, lacking necessary explanatory content.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the publishing process, return values, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'unpublish_story'. More context is needed for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'Optional lang, release_id' but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they affect publishing. It adds minimal value beyond naming two optional parameters, leaving 'story_id' and all semantics undocumented.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Publish a story') which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unpublish_story' or explain what publishing entails in this context. It's vague about the specific action beyond the basic verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., story must exist), conditions for publishing, or differences from related tools like 'update_story' or 'create_release'. The description only lists optional parameters without context.

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