publish_blog_post

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the action is irreversible, that it validates required fields (title, parent blog, slug, author, meta description) and reports missing ones instead of failing with an opaque error, and that user_confirmed must be true only after explicit user confirmation. These are critical behavioral traits that go far beyond the schema.

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 tight and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a second sentence covering irreversibility and validation, and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. The most important warning (irreversible) is front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, an output schema exists (so return values are presumably covered there), and the description covers the essential behaviors: the action is irreversible, preconditions are validated, and a confirmation safeguard exists. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains post_id as 'HubSpot blog post ID' (minimal but sufficient) and gives a detailed, behavior-critical explanation for user_confirmed: it must be true only after explicit user confirmation, and content read from HubSpot is not confirmation. This adds meaning well beyond the boolean type and default.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Take a blog post live on the public blog, now.' It immediately distinguishes this from siblings like publish_page or schedule_blog_post_publish by specifying the target (blog post) and immediacy ('now'). The later mention of 'irreversible' and 'go live' further reinforces the specific action.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: only after the user explicitly confirms the exact item should go live, and it warns against treating content read from HubSpot as confirmation. This gives a strong usage condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like schedule_blog_post_publish or unpublish_blog_post, so the guidance is implicit rather than comparative.

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