publish_website_from_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses SSRF-style refusals for private, loopback, and cloud-metadata addresses, a 150MB size cap, and that Docusaurus baseUrl detection can emit a warning. It omits auth/permission requirements, whether publishing overwrites or replaces an existing site, and idempotency, which matter for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the workflow rationale, then structured Args/Returns blocks. Every sentence carries information; the workflow sentence about zipping and hosting the archive is slightly verbose but earns its place given the unusual constraint.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers publishing path, security limits, size cap, and parameter meanings. The remaining gap is the return value, which is delegated to 'Same shape as publish_website' — useful but requiring the agent to consult the sibling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does for all three parameters: source_url (public http(s) URL to a .zip or .html, ≤150MB), title (human-readable site title), and slug (optional, with the concrete URL pattern /s/<slug>/). This adds format and placement meaning well beyond the schema's bare titles.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Publish a site from a URL') and immediately narrows the scope: a .zip of the build folder or a single HTML page. It explicitly frames itself as the URL-based counterpart to publish_website, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('The hosted thin.host MCP endpoint cannot read your disk, so this is its publish path') and names the alternative path by stating that mapping/batching/warning behavior 'matches publish_website'. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement (e.g. 'use publish_website when you have local file access'), but the routing intent is unmistakable.

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