share_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: uploads HTML and returns a shareable link with a feedback widget. It also mentions the parameter size limitation. However, it does not discuss reversibility, side effects, or any access requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningfully: what it does, when to use it, and how to handle large files. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter choice guidance. It mentions the shareable link as the output. It could mention more about update/create behavior with prototype_id, but the schema covers that, and the tool is relatively simple.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for choosing file_path over html due to size limits, which is not present in the schema. This extra context helps the agent select the correct parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Share a static HTML page on VibeSharing.' It distinguishes the tool from heavier alternatives like Vercel, GitHub, and React wrappers, and from sibling tools by emphasizing the simplest, no-build-step sharing method.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'for standalone HTML files, one-page prototypes, or any static content that doesn't need a build step.' It also provides an explicit alternative for large files: 'use file_path instead of html to avoid MCP parameter size limits.'

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