publish_channel

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

The description goes beyond annotations (which are absent) to disclose that the action is permanent, notifies other participants, and records the user's identity as the leaker. This is critical for a destructive action and is well described. However, it doesn't mention potential irreversibility beyond permanence or any rate limits.

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 concise and forceful, with serious warnings front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: explaining the action, its permanence, and the social consequences. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (permanent leak), the description provides essential details about consequences and who is affected. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it doesn't clarify what the response will be, which is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters (api_key and channel_id), so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 that publishing a private channel permanently leaks its entire history to the realm, making it public. The verb 'LEAK' is specific and the resource (channel) is identified, distinguishing this from sibling tools like read_channel or send_message.

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 this is used when a user wants to expose a private channel's history, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as when to use read_channel instead. It also doesn't provide context like 'use this to deliberately leak a channel' or mention any prerequisites.

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