execute_activity_publication

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the full behavioral contract: rechecks source and preferences, sends at most one POST, reads back the calendar and detail, and treats a timeout or unverified read-back as uncertain and never retried automatically. This is exactly the kind of non-idempotent, side-effecting detail an agent needs.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and sequencing, and no filler. Slightly packed – the consent/precondition clause could be separated – but every phrase carries load.

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 non-idempotent open-world mutation with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) and zero schema parameter coverage, it covers consent, sequencing, retry semantics and uncertainty well. It omits the meaning of confirmed and acknowledgePossibleDuplicate, which is a real gap for a write tool.

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, and it partly does – it references the preview's gym, source, date, variant, audience, WOD TV setting, results and the action reference. However, it does not explain the confirmed boolean const, or acknowledgePossibleDuplicate, leaving two parameters without meaning. Good but incomplete compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (Publish) and resource (the fresh prepare_activity_publication preview), and explicitly ties it to the sibling prepare_activity_publication, distinguishing it from all other execute_* and get_* siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening other schemas.

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?

Clearly states the precondition (only after the MCP client shows the preview and obtains action-specific account-holder confirmation; a reference alone is insufficient consent). It does not explicitly name when-not to use it versus e.g. execute_booking_creation, but the dependence on a fresh prepare_activity_publication preview implies the alternative path.

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