publish_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the output (shareable URL) and that markdown is rendered, but it does not cover authentication, rate limits, content visibility, or effects of publishing the same content again. The description adds some context but lacks depth.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and output. No superfluous words, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (7 optional parameters with oneOf constraint) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the result (shareable URL) and common use cases. It could mention that password and TTL are supported, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is fairly complete for a publishing tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that markdown is rendered into a clean reader page, but it does not provide additional meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 purpose: publish HTML, markdown, or a remote URL and get a shareable URL. It uses a specific verb 'publish' and identifies the resource types, with examples of use cases.

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 general use cases (sharing reports, dashboards, etc.) but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tools are listed, so the guidance is implicit.

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