shortcut_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful side effect — that the emitted manifest injects spec.update_manifest into the shortcut, changing its runtime update behavior — but says nothing about whether existing output files are overwritten, where files are written, required signing credentials, or what is returned.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the verb chain and the outcome. Dense and largely waste-free, though the hosting sentence drifts slightly into deployment advice rather than tool contract.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested `spec` object, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: the two output files are never named, output_dir is unexplained, and the return value/error modes are unknown. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly without reading the schema or guessing.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It clarifies `version` (must be bumped per release), `base_url` (hosting location) and the `spec` mutation via spec.update_manifest, but `notes` and especially `output_dir` — which determines where the two files land — are never explained.

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 compound action (build + sign + write manifest.json) with a stated goal (self-updating installed copies), which is distinguishable from shortcut_build and shortcut_sign as the end-to-end publish step. It never explicitly says it subsumes those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Offers real operational guidance: host the two output files at base_url (GitHub raw/Pages/S3) and bump `version` for every release. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over calling shortcut_build and shortcut_sign separately, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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