uselink_publish_with_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the full side-effect chain: creates a draft, uploads local images, rewrites HTML to CDN URLs, saves the rewritten version, and publishes. It also states the return value (public URL plus assets and rewrites), giving a complete picture of the operation's 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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the key concept ('One-shot publish') and then lists the steps and return value in a logical sequence. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 complex multi-step operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and the core workflow. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the combination of clear steps and usage guidance makes it sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and side effects.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining how 'html' with relative paths triggers asset upload and rewriting, and how 'assets_dir' resolves those paths. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions by connecting the parameters to the overall workflow.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'One-shot publish' and enumerates the exact sequence of actions (create draft, upload assets, rewrite HTML, save, publish). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uselink_create_document, uselink_upload_asset, and uselink_publish_document by combining these steps.

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 description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you have an HTML document with relative image paths and want to publish it to uselink in a single step.' While it gives a clear 'when to use', it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'single step' implies it replaces a multi-step workflow.

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