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

The annotations already communicate that this is a write operation with possible external effects. The description adds the 'stable URL' behavior, but the private-by-default sharing statement repeats the sharing parameter's schema description. It does not disclose persistence/overwrite behavior or other side effects 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary purpose and return value are front-loaded, and the sharing behavior is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The definition is adequate for a straightforward publish action, but given a complex nested schema with no output schema and no required top-level properties, it leaves ambiguity about whether exactly one of html/generationId must be supplied and how to choose between related publishing siblings. The stable URL return is stated, but other operational constraints are absent.

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 description coverage is 60%, leaving html and generationId undocumented. The description clarifies that 'html' is a complete static document and that 'generationId' refers to a generated diagram, adding meaning the schema lacks. It also reinforces the sharing default, though schema already covers it.

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 names a concrete action ('Publish'), specific resource types ('complete static HTML document' or 'generated diagram by generationId'), and the outcome ('return its stable URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_page and publish_presentation.

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 implies the intended use by describing the two accepted payloads (HTML or generationId), but it never explicitly states when to choose publish_html over publish_page/publish_presentation, nor gives any when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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