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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important constraints such as the ZIP must contain index.html at its root and the ~10MB size threshold. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or response format, which are left undisclosed. The added constraints are useful but not a complete safety/profile description.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes value. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides essential limitations and an alternative. No fluff or repetition.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains the input format, mandatory content, and a key size limit. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a URL or success indicator) or clarify how it differs from the sibling 'publish' tool, leaving small gaps in context.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context for the key parameter zip_base64 by requiring that the ZIP contain an index.html at its root, which is not present in the schema. This extra constraint helps clarify correct usage beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's function: 'Publish a multi-file HTML site from a base64-encoded ZIP file.' This specifies the verb (publish), resource (multi-file HTML site), and input format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'publish', though the base64 ZIP method is an implicit differentiator.

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 explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool and use an alternative: 'For sites larger than ~10MB — or whenever you have the file on disk — prefer the REST API /v1/artifacts/upload endpoint.' This gives clear conditional usage instructions and names a specific alternative, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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