publish_repo

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: publication fails when shared files contain credentials, and user consent is required before invoking. It still says nothing about what is published where, whether publication is idempotent or reversible, or how a credential block is surfaced.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the failure condition, then the required pre-call step. No filler or repetition.

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 a mutation-style tool with an undocumented nested manifest object and no output schema, the definition covers preconditions and one failure mode but leaves the manifest contract and the result of a successful publish unexplained.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It does add meaning to both parameters — the folder must be one the user authorised, and the manifest must be complete — but the manifest is a free-form nested object whose expected keys are documented nowhere, which is a significant gap.

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: publishing a folder together with its completed manifest. This distinguishes it reasonably from the prepare step and from site-publishing siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implies prerequisites (folder must be user-authorised, manifest must be completed) and adds a procedural instruction to ask the user for confirmation. It does not name the alternative tools or explicitly state the negative case (e.g. do not call if the manifest is incomplete, use prepare_publish first).

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