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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral constraints: the app runs in a sandboxed opaque origin with no cookies/session, only the CORS-open public API is reachable, root-relative imports are allowed while off-origin ones are refused, and the checks reject empty, oversized, model-id-less, or externally-dependent apps. It also clarifies that behavioral correctness is not verified by this tool. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds operational value: purpose, serving context, runtime template, component composition, import rules, and validation checks. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then builds out practical constraints without 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?

For a publish operation with no output schema, the description covers the full call context: what is published, where it is served, how to construct valid HTML, what checks will reject it, and what the tool does not verify. Nothing critical for an agent 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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters at 100%, the description adds significant meaning: 'id' must be a model you own, and 'html' must be the complete self-contained document produced from the generator, with explicit import rules and composition guidance. This goes well beyond the schema's short field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Publish'), a specific resource (the generated single-file HTML app for a model you own), and the serving location (/app/<id>). It clearly differentiates this from generic publishing or model-management tools by tying it to the generator output and the model's view prompt.

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?

It gives strong guidance on how to use it: start from /lib/app-template.html, compose the listed components, keep imports root-relative, and satisfy the stated checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this is the right publish path.

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