Publish Site

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

It provides deep behavioral context beyond the annotations, specifying critical operational behaviors like 'all collection trees are public' and that 'living dates, places and notes are hidden by default.' It also discloses necessary external dependencies, namely Cloudflare authentication.

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 definition is dense with high-value information, efficiently covering workflow, privacy rules, and technical requirements in a few sentences. It is generally well-structured, placing the critical site-wide scope first.

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 the lack of parameter explanation, the description is exceptionally complete regarding the tool's operational environment (e.g., Cloudflare dependency, automatic rebuild mechanism, public visibility defaults). It covers all necessary high-level decision points.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must define the inputs. It fails entirely to explain what the 'hide_living' or 'keep_updated' parameters specifically control or what their practical effect is on the published site.

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 tool clearly defines its purpose: to publish the ENTIRE configured website, specifically mentioning the scope of 'chooser and all trees.' This is precise and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'configure_website' or 'get_website'.

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 prerequisites and operational context, instructing the agent that it must 'First call configure_website.' It also defines inherent behavior (e.g., automatic rebuild after edits pause), which serves as a clear usage constraint.

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