publish_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool mutates state (publishes or discards a draft) and that publishing activates the draft. However, it omits side effects like whether the previous version is deactivated or if the draft is deleted after publishing. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, very concise and well-structured. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema/annotations, the description covers main behavior and usage context. It could mention post-publish effects like draft deletion or version activation details, but overall it is fairly complete.

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. The description adds some context for draft_id ('returned by update_agent_config or update_agent_prompt') but does not enhance understanding of other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool publishes or discards a draft, making changes live. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning when to use it (after update_agent_config or update_agent_prompt) and the alternative of discarding.

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 says 'Use after update_agent_config or update_agent_prompt creates a draft', providing clear context. It also mentions discarding as an alternative but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though that is implied.

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