Publish Knowledge Article

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it makes the article publicly visible and warns to ensure review before publishing. The annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), but the description enriches with visibility impact.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a relevant warning. No redundancy or fluff. The IMPORTANT note earns its place.

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 a simple tool with two params and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what happens (visible to end users) and includes a safety warning. It doesn't discuss return values or error cases, but these are not critical for this operation.

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%, but the description adds semantic meaning by stating the sys_id must be for a 'draft' article. This is a meaningful constraint not explicitly in the schema. The instance parameter is well covered by the schema description already.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a draft knowledge article by setting its workflow_state to published.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_kb_article, update_kb_article, and get_kb_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 context is clear: this tool is for publishing draft articles and making them visible. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'IMPORTANT' note about review before publishing gives practical guidance. This is one step below explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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