publish_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the key state transition (draft → live) and the consequence (attendee registrations become possible), but it does not mention prerequisites such as what happens if the event is already live, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible via unpublish_event.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the action and packs the essential state change into few words. There is no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter state-transition action with an output schema, the description covers the core effect and target resource. It omits edge-case behavior and permissions, but the low complexity and clear purpose make the definition reasonably complete for invocation.

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 0% and the description does not mention event_id. The parameter's role is inferable from the tool name and the property name/title, but the description adds no explicit mapping or format guidance, so it only partially compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 ('Publish'), a resource ('a draft event'), and the resulting state ('making it live for attendee registrations'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unpublish_event and cancel_event, which represent opposite or different lifecycle actions.

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 phrase 'Publish a draft event' establishes the intended precondition: this tool is for draft events that need to go live. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance, but the context is clear.

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