Publish Channel Episode

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them by naming the exact permission scopes required, the confirm=true gate, and the side effects (may share access, notify people, incur provider charges). That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before firing a publish mutation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured permission and confirmation requirements. The permission block is slightly verbose but every clause carries actionable constraint information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, confirmation, and side effects well. It omits what publishing actually changes about episode visibility and how publish_at scheduling interacts with the action, which would complete the picture.

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%, so all six parameters including confirm and publish_at are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (channel episode) and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from create_channel_episode. It does not name the obvious inverse sibling un_publish_channel_episode, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites: a required token permission set, an alternative delegation scope, and the mandatory confirm=true flag for the write. It never states when to choose this over un_publish_channel_episode or how it relates to scheduling, so exclusions are absent.

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