Publish a folder as a website

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and non-idempotency, but the description adds the critical behavior model: first publish is gated by an email-activation preview page, re-publishing overwrites the same URL, and the user must confirm before replacing a live site. That is precisely the context an agent needs to avoid destroying a live site unintentionally.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return value, then ordered by lifecycle: first publish, re-publish, framework apps. Dense but every sentence carries operational meaning; slightly crowded in the middle with quoted synonyms.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating it returns the site URL and explaining the preview-activation state. For a destructive, open-world publish tool with four parameters, all decision-relevant context (prerequisites, confirmation, update semantics) is present.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by clarifying the path semantics (must be a built output folder such as out/, dist/, build/, .output/public for framework apps) and the confirm_update sequencing. It leaves new_site and project_id largely 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 — publish a local folder as a public static site on publish.my — and includes the concrete precondition (index.html at top) and the return value (URL). An agent can tell this apart from check_activation and list_sites without opening the schema.

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 explicit trigger vocabulary (publish, deploy, host, put online, share a link) plus a decision rule: first publish yields a preview requiring email activation, subsequent publishes go live. It also states the re-publish workflow (ask the user, then confirm_update: true) and the framework prerequisite. It falls short of 5 only because the sibling tools are never named as alternatives for the surrounding steps.

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