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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only but non-destructive write; the description reinforces this by promising that app.db collections/fields and localStorage keys are preserved so data and the shared link survive. It also adds a security constraint (never put editKey in the HTML or public link) and names the returned URLs. Rich, consistent 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the data-preservation guarantee and the return/claim guidance. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the key return values (openUrl, claimUrl), the preservation semantics of an update, and the editKey handling rule. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates that appId/editKey come from create_app and adds the editKey secrecy rule, but does not explain the html-vs-zipBase64 choice or its alternatives beyond what the schema already documents.

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 una versión nueva de la misma app anónima') and pins down which app via appId/editKey from create_app, explicitly distinguishing it from the creation tool. An agent can tell this is a redeploy/update, not a create, without opening the schema.

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 conditions: use it with the appId and editKey returned by create_app, and hand the person openUrl while treating claimUrl as private/optional. It does not contrast against validate_app or explain when not to re-publish, but the primary usage context is unambiguous.

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