Share the project under a public link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/exposure profile is partly covered. The description contributes real beyond-schema behavior: external visibility for anyone with the link, repeat publishes returning the existing link, and re-publishing after disabling invalidating the old URL. Calling twice being safe while idempotentHint=false is a nuance (state mutation vs. link stability) rather than a contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by consequences and then procedural cautions. Three short paragraphs, no filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (visibility exposure, link invalidation) come first.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, yet the description still notes re-calls answer the existing link. Combined with the exposure and link-lifecycle warnings, an agent has everything needed to call and to prompt the user appropriately.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the description is not required to explain them. It adds no format or syntax detail for enabled/projectId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb pair and resource: publishes the project under a public link or takes it down. It also states the effect for link holders (read-only project visibility, the same view as project settings), which makes it unmistakable against siblings like update_project or list_projects.

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?

Explicit guidance: confirm with the user before publishing, warn before disabling a handed-out link, and it is safe to re-call on an already-public project to read the link back. It even points to list_projects as an alternative way to read publicUrl.

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