Publish a page and get a link

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and has open world effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context: pages are public, no account needed, anonymous pages retained for a month, permanent storage with a token, and in-place updates via update_url. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral specifics beyond the safety flags.

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 a compact paragraph, roughly five sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and use cases. It efficiently packs usage triggers, behavioral notes, and filename guidance without redundancy. It is not overly terse but remains focused and scannable, earning a high but not perfect score.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool publish_path or when to choose it (e.g., for file paths or binary content). While the schema hints at this, the description itself leaves the boundary ambiguous. This is a notable gap for a tool with a sibling, so completeness is adequate but not full.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance beyond the schema, such as emphasizing that the filename decides rendering ('pass 'report.md' for Markdown instead of renaming it to .html') and clarifying that only text can be sent as a string, which reinforces the schema's note about binary formats. This lifts the score above baseline.

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 'publish', the resource (content to a public URL), and explicitly enumerates the content types and user intents that trigger it (share, send, publish, give me a link). It also differentiates from the sibling publish_path by specifying 'content you have in hand' and later noting binary formats must go through publish_path, making the tool's role 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?

It gives a strong when-to-use rule ('Use this whenever the user asks to share, send, publish...') and even advises preferring it over manual uploads. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling publish_path as the alternative for when content is a file path or binary, though the schema description covers this. The context is clear but the exclusion of alternatives is left to inference from the phrase 'content you have in hand'.

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