publish_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action is a publish with external visibility, specifies the repository source via an environment variable, and mentions the return of a public URL. It does not cover failure modes or side effects like overwriting, but the key traits are present.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded, and the mandatory usage warning follows. Every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the decisive safety condition, but it omits parameter semantics and does not specify the response format beyond 'returns a public URL'. For a simple publish operation with two params, it is partially complete but leaves important invocation details to inference.

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 description gives no explanation of either parameter. While 'html_path' is implicitly the rendered HTML file, 'slug' is completely unexplained, and the schema provides no description either (0% coverage). This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 action (upload rendered HTML to GitHub Pages), the target repository (via environment variable), and the expected result (returns a public URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_document or list_themes, which perform different stages of the workflow.

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 an explicit condition for use: only call after user confirmation because the content becomes externally public. This provides clear context and a gate, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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