publish_draft_note

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

Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'It changes remote GitLab state' (mutation), 'requires the necessary project or group permission' (auth), and explains error behavior: 'GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying an invalid request.' This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences and covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the specific operation and each sentence adds value, though some phrasing like 'use this for the specific operation described' is somewhat redundant. It is efficient without being overly terse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, permissions, and error handling. It does not explicitly state what a successful response contains, such as the published draft note, but that omission is somewhat excused by the lack of an output schema. The tool is simple (three required parameters) and the description is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines all parameters. The description adds guidance on project_id formatting and says to use required identifiers as documented, which is useful but redundant with the schema. It also mentions 'group_id' when the schema only has 'project_id,' which could cause slight confusion. Overall, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Publish a single draft note,' which is a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes this from other operations by saying 'choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action,' reinforcing that this tool is for publishing a single draft note only.

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 includes 'Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action,' which tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not name the specific sibling for bulk publishing (bulk_publish_draft_notes) or other draft note operations, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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