Publish files you wrote

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral facts: the site's URL is returned, a single file becomes the site itself, and .md/.pdf files are served through the viewer. However, it leaves out any effects on existing sites (create vs. overwrite) and does not clarify the contradictory statement about PDFs being text-only, which reduces transparency.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and supporting details are grouped logically. Despite minor ambiguity in the 'Text only' phrase, the description is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given there is no output schemacomm, the description usefully explains both the return value (URL) and the acceptance criteria. It still omits some call-relevant behavior, such as overwrite semantics and whether multiple files create a multi-page site, but for simple invocations it contains what an agent needs.

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 covers both parameters descriptively, but the description adds behavioral semantics beyond the schema, such as accepted source types and how a single file maps to the site root. It does not compensate for all parameter nuance (e.g., what happens when an existing site is named), but it meaningfully enriches the schema's parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Publishes'), names the file types, explains the output ('as a site', 'returns its URL'), and gives concrete behavior examples (index.html, single .md/.pdf). This clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs from a generic file upload.

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 provides explicit routing guidance: text files belong here, whereas a PDF or an image must go through publish_dir. This identifies the alternative sibling tool. However, the 'Text only' clause is worded confusingly (since PDFs were just mentioned as supported), slightly muddying the boundary.

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