htmldrop_publish

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it creates a hosted page and returns a share URL, but these are largely implied by the annotations and the operation type. No additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits are mentioned. No contradiction exists.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and result, the second gives usage trigger and the key parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With a fully documented input schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering mutation, external side effects, and non-idempotency, the description needs only to clarify usage and the exclusive parameter choice. It does both effectively, making the tool's invocation well-specified for an agent.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds the valuable cross-parameter constraint: 'Pass exactly one of html or markdown.' This clarifies mutual exclusivity, which is not fully explicit in the schema (each property only states 'Either this or markdown must be set'). Thus, the description meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Publish an HTML or Markdown document as a hosted page on htmldrop.' It specifies the resource, the action, and the outcome ('Returns the public share URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (list/delete).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever a user asks to publish, share, or put on the web some HTML / Markdown content.' This offers clear context and trigger phrases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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