Publish (share) the Scratch project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that publishing is public/outward-facing, requires login and ownership, and that it always prompts for user confirmation. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, action first, then prerequisites and confirmation rule. No filler; every clause adds relevant information, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 simple publish tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and param usage fully. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% for both parameters, meeting the baseline. The description adds minimal extra value: it restates the confirm behavior but does not offer new parameter semantics beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the action: 'Publish a project on scratch.mit.edu so it becomes publicly visible', with a specific resource and HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like save_project or push_to_scratch by being solely about sharing/publishing.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (login and ownership) and a clear confirmation rule ('always asks the user to confirm first' and 'set confirm: true only after the user has agreed'). It does not name alternative tools or exclude scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to apply it.

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