article_publish

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

The description fully discloses the two modes, their trade-offs, and the atomicity of the fast path vs the race window in the fallback. It explains that the tool only publishes by copying autosaved fields to published fields, which adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for the two modes and explicit warnings. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the reason for the separate tool. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids comprehension.

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?

The description covers the key complexity of the tool, including the two modes, race condition, and rejection of mixed arguments. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but given the absence of an output schema, it is mostly complete for its complexity level. The self-explanatory required parameters (site, article_id) are not elaborated, but that is acceptable.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the required grouping of autosaved_* parameters (all or none) and the consequences of each mode. With 60% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing the logic behind parameter usage. However, site and article_id remain basic and are not further explained.

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 'Publish an article' and explains the distinction from article_update by detailing Voog's behavior requiring a separate tool. The verb 'publish' is specific to the action and resource, and the context of why it cannot be a flag on update is well-articulated, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicitly outlines when to use the fast path (pass all three autosaved_* args) vs the fallback (pass none), and warns against mixed arguments. It provides clear guidance on avoiding race conditions, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other sibling tools beyond article_update or mention scenarios where the tool should not be used (e.g., if article is already published).

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