update_publication_flags

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

The description only says 'partial update', which implies a non-destructive mutation but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and falls short.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes directly to the purpose, making it maximally concise given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to mention the required parameter (publication_id) or provide context for the flags. For a 3-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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. It names the two flags (isComplete, archived) but does not explain their meaning or that publication_id is the required identifier. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter titles.

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 explicitly states 'Partial update of the publication isComplete / archived flags', which clearly identifies the tool's action (partial update), the resource (publication), and the specific fields affected (isComplete and archived). This differentiates it from sibling tools that update other attributes.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: it is for updating these two flags. However, there are no explicit statements about when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., update_publication_titles) or prerequisites like requiring a draft or non-archived publication.

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