article_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses detailed behavior: content must be Markdown, title extraction from first '# Heading', cover fallback to first image, excerpt generation, and return of id/slug/public URL. This goes well beyond basic descriptions and fully informs the agent of side effects and defaults.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose and packs essential behavior without fluff. It is somewhat lengthy, but every clause contributes to operational understanding. No wasted words, though it could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (article with id and slug + public URL), which is helpful. It covers parameter behavior, creation semantics, and defaults. It omits explicit auth prerequisites and error scenarios, but these are largely context-independent and typical for a publish action, so completeness is high.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains Markdown syntax for content, how title is derived if omitted, and the fallback logic for cover and excerpt. This enriches each parameter beyond schema descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 'Опубликовать НОВУЮ статью' (publish NEW article) with the endpoint (POST /api/articles), distinguishing it from sibling tools like article_update and article_get. It specifies the exact resource (blog articles) and verb (publish), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 strongly implies usage for creating new articles (emphasizing 'НОВУЮ') and provides context about how to use it (e.g., optional title, cover, excerpt). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct 'new' semantics and detailed behavior serve as clear guidance versus update/get/list siblings.

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