publish_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the numbers become publicly reachable, that obfuscation is only random-path plus noindex (not access control), that deployment uses `vercel deploy --prod`, and what auth/tooling is required. This is exactly the context an agent needs before an irreversible public disclosure.

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?

The consent warning is front-loaded and capitalized, which is the right ordering for a destructive-to-privacy action. Every sentence adds information, though the deployment-mechanics paragraph is longer than strictly needed for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Covers the exposure model, prerequisites, and teardown, and states the return value ('a shareable link') without an output schema. The remaining gap is the undocumented html_path input, which an agent must infer.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions html_path — it doesn't say it is a local filesystem path to the already-generated report, nor what format is expected. The description's deployment detail is about the destination, not the input.

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+resource ('Host the report and return a shareable link') and the mechanism (deploy to a Vercel project). An agent can distinguish this from generate_report, which produces the artifact this tool publishes.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: 'ASK THE USER FIRST' and 'Only run it when they have said they want a link.' It also names the precondition (vercel CLI logged in) and the reversal path (delete the file under r/ and redeploy).

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