Publish a draft to Leboncoin

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

While annotations flag mutability, non-idempotency, and destructiveness, the description adds substantial unique context about retry safety ('Never retry, or you will create a duplicate public ad'), the server-side re-validation process, and a detailed three-state `outcome` contract (published/publish_failed/publish_unknown) explaining partial execution. This goes far beyond simply restating the annotation flags.

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?

A dense, high-stakes description where every sentence delivers safety-critical guidance without fluff. It covers authorization, server-side checks, outcome states, and emergency procedures in a tight, purposeful flow. A bulleted outcome list could marginally improve scannability, but the paragraph structure effectively matches the gravity of the irreversible action.

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 an irreversible, high-risk, non-idempotent action, the description leaves no gap: it defines user permission, server-side re-validation, all possible outcomes, and the correct response to ambiguity (publish_unknown). The absence of an output schema is fully addressed by the thorough documentation of the `outcome` field, making this end-to-end complete for an agent to act safely.

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 description significantly enriches the `confirm` parameter from the schema, clarifying it is 'necessary but NOT sufficient' and binding it to a per-turn user approval. It compensates for the missing output schema by thoroughly defining the `outcome` field and its three values, which is critical for the agent. The `draftId` parameter receives no additional depth, but its purpose is self-evident from its name and type.

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 precise verb+resource statement: 'Publishes a draft as a real, public Leboncoin ad,' making the tool's core function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools in the prepare/validate/publish pipeline by emphasizing 'real, public' and 'IRREVERSIBLE,' which positions it as the final publishing step, clearly separating it from prepare_listing, validate_listing, and update_listing_draft.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'you may only set [confirm] after the user has seen the draft and explicitly told you, in that turn, to publish this specific ad.' It also gives a clear when-not with the example that "Looks good" about a draft is not permission. On `publish_unknown`, it routes to `my_listings` or manual checking, though it could name sibling tools like `validate_listing` more explicitly as alternatives for pre-flight checks.

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