Publică

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavior: it makes the element visible, it should be used only after human approval, and with 'la' in the future it schedules automatic publication. This enriches the agent's understanding of timing and workflow. It does not contradict annotations; rather it complements them with scheduling and approval context.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and then adds the approval workflow and scheduling behavior. Every clause adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter publish tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers the essential context: visibility change, approval gate, and scheduling behavior. It could mention the 'la' in the past case, but that is already in the schema's parameter description, so the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a brief note about 'la' scheduling that reinforces the schema's explanation, but does not significantly extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource statement: 'Face elementul vizibil pe site' (makes the element visible on the site), which uniquely identifies the publish action. It also references the sibling 'previzualizeaza' to distinguish the pre-approval preview step, and explains the scheduling nuance with 'la', so an agent can differentiate it from save or retract.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition: publish only after human approval, pointing to previzualizeaza as the approval step. It also covers the scheduling use case ('cu la în viitor... programat'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it compared with salveaza or retrage, but the approval condition and visibility outcome provide enough context for selection.

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