publish_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that publishing snapshots all current page sources, affects every saved page, and that dry_run controls whether it actually publishes. It doesn't mention potential side effects like downtime, but the safety mechanism is well explained.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then a key scoping note, then the safety mechanism. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety. It doesn't explain return values, but that's not necessary for a publish action. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema already describes the single parameter dry_run with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining the default value (true) and what each value does. This goes beyond the schema's brief 'Preview (true) or publish for real (false)'.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish the whole site live.' It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting that this is a site-level operation, not per-page, which differentiates it from any potential publishing-related siblings.

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 clear context on when to use: when you want all saved pages to go live, and clarifies it is not per-page. It also recommends the two-step safety flow with dry_run. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or situations where this tool should be avoided, though no direct siblings exist.

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