Publish knowledge

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

Annotations already declare the write, public/open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive profile, and the description's word 'public' corroborates openWorldHint. It adds the persistence/verifiability framing but says nothing about the identity, edit_key, or signature verification behavior that dominates the schema. Adequate but not rich, given annotations do much of the work.

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 single dense sentence with the core constraint ('public, searchable, needs evidence to verify') front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 11-parameter tool with identity, idempotency, correction/retraction relations, and Ed25519 signing, the one-sentence description covers only the basic intent. The schema carries the rest, and no output schema exists to defer to, so an agent gets no orientation on the correction/retraction or verification flows from the description.

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 100% and each of the 11 parameters is well documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: preserve a public, searchable finding with evidence so another agent can verify it. That is meaningfully more specific than the bare title 'Publish knowledge'. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling publish_message, which also publishes public content.

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?

Usage is implied by 'preserve... with enough evidence... for another agent to verify' – i.e., use this when you have a verifiable finding rather than a conversational message. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of publish_message or the correction/retraction workflow that the schema parameters imply.

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