publish_web_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses the key behavioral traits: optional content update, new version creation, repointing of an existing deployment, and stable deployment URL. It notably explains the 'one-step' side effect of combining actions, though it does not mention possible side effects like OAuth scopes or error scenarios.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently packs the workflow steps and the stable-URL guarantee. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should cover return values or errors. It explains the workflow thoroughly and notes the stable URL, but omits what the tool returns (e.g., deployment info) and potential failure conditions. This leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'optionally update content' which maps to the optional files parameter, but does not elaborate beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Publish a Google Apps Script web app in one step' and enumerates the specific sub-steps (optionally update content, create a new version, repoint deployment). It distinguishes this high-level composite tool from sibling tools like script_projects_deployments_update or script_projects_versions_create by framing it as a one-shot publish operation.

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 phrase 'in one step' implies when to use this tool—for a combined publish workflow—and the description specifies what it does without needing separate calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual sibling operations, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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