publishNostrPages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully explains the two-phase publish flow and the index.html requirement, but omits key behavioral facts an agent needs: the auth requirement (privkey), what happens to an existing site on re-publish (the d-tag is replaceable), and failure/error behavior.

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 verb and resource, then the mechanism, then prerequisites and defaults. Dense with useful jargon and no filler, though the parenthetical kind codes and defaults make it slightly heavier than ideal.

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 13-parameter publish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the high-level flow well but leaves many parameters and the authorization model unexplained. Adequate to understand intent, incomplete for confident invocation.

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 54%, so the schema documents roughly half the params. The description adds useful semantics for two of them (files vs fromBridge as alternative input modes, and the default Blossom server), but leaves auth and identity params (privkey, ownerPubkey, relays, repoId, dTag) to the schema. Marginal value over structured fields.

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 Nostr Pages') and even the underlying protocol/kind (NIP-5A kind 35128), then describes the actual mechanism (upload files via Blossom proxy kind 24242, sign the named-site manifest). The 'Pages only — never for app installers' clause actively distinguishes it from the sibling publishSoftwareAnnounce/announceSoftwareFromForgeRelease tools.

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 concrete prerequisites ('Requires index.html') and a routing exclusion ('never for app installers'), plus how to select the input mode ('Pass files or fromBridge:true to read the git tree'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should use for app installers, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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