publish_to_web

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), the description explains the non-idempotent behavior in concrete terms ('repeated calls create duplicate posts'), reveals that publishing happens via a single configured SMTP identity, and discloses the unusual return behavior (confirmation plus a link to the sender's page, not the new post URL). This is rich, actionable context.

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 compact yet information-dense: one sentence for purpose, one for input list, and one each for exclusions, return behavior, and idempotency. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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 there is no output schema, the description properly covers return values (confirmation, sender page link, absence of exact URL) and side effects (duplicate posts on repeat). It also notes the mechanism (email) and the full input scope, making the tool safe and predictable for an agent without needing additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds minor context by listing the parameters (subject, body, format, group) and mentioning that attachments are not supported, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter meanings. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: "Publish content to a public web page on ABOVO.co" via a specific SMTP identity. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling get_abovo_info, which is an info/read tool.

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 gives explicit usage cautions: no file attachments are supported, and repeated calls create duplicate posts. It also notes that the exact post URL is not returned (it is emailed separately), helping an agent decide whether this tool meets the need. It does not name an alternative tool, but the only sibling is clearly for reading info, so context is sufficient.

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