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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: apps are deleted after 30 days if unused and without app.net, claimUrl is private and only for that person, and appId/editKey must be retained for updates. It also clarifies that no account or token is required. This is exactly the lifecycle, privacy, and credential context an agent needs for a create operation.

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 core constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most of the content is useful operational guidance. It is a dense paragraph rather than a tightly structured list, and some conversational instructions could be separated, but it is not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description still names the important return/state fields: message with openUrl, claimUrl, appId, and editKey. It also covers deletion policy and next-step behavior. It falls short on input selection (html vs zipBase64) and does not mention validate_app, but it is largely complete for the tool’s complexity.

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 schema documents html and zipBase64, including that zipBase64 is an alternative to html, but name is undocumented. The description adds no input-level meaning and does not clarify that at least one of html or zipBase64 must effectively be supplied. With 67% schema coverage, the schema carries most of the burden, so this is adequate but has a clear gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publicá' an app) plus a key scope condition: no account or token. It also distinguishes this from update_app by saying not to create another app when publishing changes to the same one.

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?

Gives clear workflow guidance: publish, relay the message, ask once about saving, and use update_app for changes to this same app. However, it does not reference validate_app or get_sdk, so sibling alternatives are only partially covered.

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