Publish Channel Episode

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: required token permissions, the confirm=true gate, and the side-effect warning that the action 'May share access, notify people or incur provider charges.' That is exactly the extra disclosure this dimension rewards.

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 core action sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the middle permission block is lengthy boilerplate about token scopes that consumes most of the text. The final sentence is high-value; the permission verbosity dilutes the signal.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: auth prerequisites, the confirm gate, and side-effect warnings. The main omission is the lack of alternative-routing context relative to un_publish_channel_episode.

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 the schema already documents confirm, publish_at, payload, and payload_file. The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement, which is useful, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Publishes') and resource ('an existing channel episode'), so an agent knows the operation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling un_publish_channel_episode or explaining the relationship to create/update_channel_episode. 'In a channel' adds little since the resource name already implies that.

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 covers auth requirements and the confirm=true rule but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to. With siblings like un_publish_channel_episode and update_channel_episode present, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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