Publish static HTML

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

With annotations declaring non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, the description still adds meaningful behavior: it returns a stable URL and discloses that omitting sharing defaults to private-to-owner, plus that access can expire. That default-state disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences that lead with purpose and the returned URL, then the default and the option space. They earn their place, though the final sentence is dense and slightly compacted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, return value, default access, and the full sharing option space. It stops short of stating auth/permission needs or reversibility, but is otherwise sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 67% and nested sharing detail is spread across a large oneOf, so the description earns its place by synthesizing the restricted mode as combining domain, specific-email, and password access plus optional expiration. It adds the default-selection logic for the sharing param, though html and title gain little.

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?

Specific verb (Publish) plus resource (complete static HTML document) and it even states the return (stable URL). It doesn't name any sibling such as publish_page or publish_presentation to differentiate, but 'static HTML document' implicitly scopes it against those page/presentation siblings.

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?

It gives usage context for the sharing option (omitted = private, choose public or restricted) and the default behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-a-sibling guidance or prerequisite/auth requirements. The usage is implied rather than routed.

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