blink artifact (no account)

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false annotations by disclosing the exposure model (public link), retention (7-day expiry), size ceiling, and the exact return fields. The instruction to show url/claimUrl and keep key secret is operationally critical guidance an agent could not infer from any structured field.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then constraints, then return handling. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself ({ id, url, expiresAt, key, claimUrl }) and even annotates expiresAt as unix seconds. Combined with the privacy and expiry disclosures, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0% and the single `html` parameter is untyped beyond `string`, so the description must compensate — it does by clarifying 'self-contained' and imposing the 512 KiB limit. It does not say whether a full document (doctype/head/body) is expected, leaving one real ambiguity.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('a single self-contained HTML page') plus the two defining scope traits: no account required and 512 KiB cap. An agent can tell this creates a new public page rather than modifying one, which is the distinction from the update_html sibling.

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 the conditions that matter for choosing it: no account needed, the result is public to anyone with the link, and it expires after 7 days — enough for an agent to judge fitness. It does not explicitly route to update_html or say when not to publish, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by stating the link and expiry are preserved, naming the specific failure modes (not_found for wrong key, gone for expired/removed/claimed pages), and giving the exact return shape. It also adds a security instruction to keep the key secret while showing url and claimUrl.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then invariants, then failure modes, then return shape and display 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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description supplies the return object fields, error semantics, and side-effect guarantees (link/expiry unchanged). Nothing material is missing for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that id and key come from a prior publish_html call and that the key is a secret, and implies html is the replacement content; only the exact format/constraints on html are left unstated.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Replace the HTML of a page you published earlier') and ties it to the sibling publish_html with the distinguishing condition that the page must already exist. An agent can tell this apart from publish_html without inspecting either 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?

Explicitly routes to publish_html for the initial publish and implies this tool is only for pages published earlier. Clear context, though it doesn't state exclusions such as what to do if you don't have the id/key.

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