memory_draft_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the operation's precondition and the fact that it promotes a draft, which implies a state change. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the preconditions are not met, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentence that front-loads the key restriction ('Pipeline-only') and communicates the operation plus the exact preconditions. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers selection and preconditions well, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it omits guidance on the optional 'refined_content' parameter, which is important for an agent to know whether to supply it and what format is expected. Thus the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 only vaguely implies that 'draft_id' identifies the draft being promoted, and it gives no meaning or guidance for 'refined_content'. The description does not add enough value beyond the raw schema to help an agent understand parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'promote a draft to published', and adds the exact scope conditions 'source='pipeline'' and 'exp_status='draft''. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_draft_save and memory_submit_response, since it names the precise state transition and pipeline restriction.

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 explicitly states when the tool can be used: only for pipeline-sourced experiences that are currently drafts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-pipeline or non-draft cases, so it falls just short of full routing guidance, but the conditionality is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriateness.

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