publish_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., making content publicly visible), or error conditions. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Publish a knowledge article', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this brevity contributes to clarity in structure, it results in significant informational gaps as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a publishing operation (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like what publishing entails, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it differs from related tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal or generic. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'article_id' requirement, the purpose of 'workflow_state' or 'workflow_version', or how these parameters affect the publishing process. This leaves all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 'Publish a knowledge article' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'publish_article' with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the verb ('publish') and resource ('knowledge article'), it lacks specificity about what publishing entails (e.g., making it live, changing workflow states) and doesn't distinguish it from potential siblings like 'update_article' or 'create_article'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing article), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'create_article' (for creation) or 'update_article' (for modifications before publishing). This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for appropriate tool selection.

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