signavio_publish_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Publish') but doesn't clarify critical traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but unstated), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a tool that presumably changes state, this lack of detail is a significant 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a publishing operation (likely a state-changing action), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publish' entails (e.g., making models public, versioning), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'modelIds' as an array of IDs in format /model/{id}. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying multiple models can be published at once ('one or more models'), which is already evident from the array type. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Publish') and the target ('one or more models to Process Collaboration Hub'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this publishing operation from other model-related operations like signavio_export_model or signavio_update_model, which could involve similar resources but different 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., models must exist, authentication required), exclusions (e.g., cannot publish drafts), or compare to siblings like signavio_export_model (which might export without publishing). This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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