Publish an HTML file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that files are read from disk by path and are suitable for large files, and that slug reuse creates versions. However, it omits error conditions, return format details beyond 'URL', and any authentication or permission requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentences: first states overall purpose and output, second addresses a practical concern (file path and large files), third covers versioning behavior. No extraneous information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow (upload, get URL) and key parameter behaviors (defaults, versioning). It lacks details on what exactly the tool returns (e.g., JSON with URL and metadata) and any error handling, but is otherwise sufficient for basic usage.

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% with good descriptions, but the tool description adds value by explaining how to obtain spaceSlug ('call list_spaces'), the versioning implication of slug, defaults for title and visibility, and the purpose of tags. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the individual schema entries.

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 clearly states the action ('Upload a local .html/.htm file'), the resource ('to a StelaSpace space'), and the output ('get back a permanent, shareable URL'). It is distinct from sibling tools (list_documents, list_spaces) which are purely read-only or listing operations.

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 a prerequisite ('call list_spaces to find valid slugs'), mentions versioning behavior ('Reusing a slug publishes a new version'), and notes file size handling ('large files work fine'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or discuss alternatives beyond listing spaces.

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