Publish website

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

The description discloses that publishing is asynchronous and takes a few minutes, starts the process, returns the URL, and requires a specific reply format. This explains the tool's behavior beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate. It gives the agent clear expectations about timing and response obligations, which is excellent. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise (four short sentences) and well-structured, covering purpose, trigger, behavior, and required follow-up. No redundancy or filler. The mandatory reply instruction is clear and imperative. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and non-destructive nature, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, asynchronous behavior, and the required response. It does not describe error scenarios or edge cases (e.g., what if the website is already published), but those are not critical for invocation. Slightly more detail would make it fully complete, but it is adequate.

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?

There is only one parameter, websiteId, described as 'The website ID' with 100% schema coverage. While the description is minimal, it is self-explanatory for a single string ID. It could benefit from specifying how to obtain the ID (e.g., from list tools), but it is sufficient for a simple parameter. Slight improvement would raise it to 5.

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 ('publish'), a specific resource ('Hostinger Horizons website'), and the effect ('so its latest changes go live'). It also notes it returns the URL, which clearly distinguishes this from other deploy/publish tools among siblings. It is not a tautology and is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user asks to publish, deploy or make their website live,' which provides clear trigger conditions. It also gives a specific instruction for the chat reply after invocation. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for selection. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't mention avoiding confusable alternatives.

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