ghost_publish_and_send_newsletter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose important side effects such as the post's status change to 'published', whether the email send is immediate and irreversible, or any failure modes (e.g., what happens if the post is not a draft). For a combined mutation operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Publish a draft post') and adds the secondary action. No filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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?

This is a combined mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., the post must be a draft), return value (e.g., success/failure info, newsletter ID), or edge cases (e.g., what if newsletter_id is invalid). Given the action's impact, the description is too sparse to reliably guide an agent through invocation and result handling.

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 three parameters (id, email_segment, newsletter_id) are already well-documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not compensate or enrich parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb–resource pair: 'Publish a draft post' and 'broadcast it as an email newsletter'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ghost_update_post (which updates posts) and ghost_list_newsletters (which manages newsletters). The combined action is unambiguous.

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 implies a clear use case: when you need to both publish a draft and email it in one step. However, it does not mention when this combined tool should NOT be used (e.g., when you want to publish without emailing, or send a newsletter without publishing) or suggest alternatives like calling ghost_update_post and a newsletter send separately. This leaves usage boundary ambiguous.

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