publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the visibility model (public vs. preview/invite-only) and the fact that publishing reads a credential key from ~/.config/paprika3d/credentials.json — valuable security context. It says nothing about reversibility, idempotency when the slug already exists, whether publishing overwrites a live deployment, or what the response contains, which are material gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 action and its destination are front-loaded, and every clause carries information (destination, visibility, permission gate, host restriction, credential warning). The semicolon-joined, parenthetical-heavy style makes it slightly dense but nothing is padding.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the destination, visibility modes, and auth handling well, but leaves out failure behavior, idempotency/redeploy semantics, and any indication of what a successful call returns beyond the implied URL.

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 100%, so all four parameters (cwd, slug, model, rotate) are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail; notably the 'rotate' semantics and slug-collision behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Publishes the project') plus the exact resulting URL pattern and the two visibility modes it can produce, so the agent knows precisely what action it takes. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. 'open', 'model_run'), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('only when the person asks') and an explicit exclusion ('never for another host'), which is unusually strong when-to-use guidance for a mutation tool. It stops short of a 5 because it names no alternative tool or fallback for the excluded cases.

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