publish_site

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explains that publishing snapshots all current page sources into the live version, affects every saved page, and provides a two-step dry_run safety mechanism. This is exactly the kind of destructive/mutating context an agent needs.

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-loads the core action, then adds a scope note and safety note in three tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, lack of output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is complete: it covers scope, effect, side effects, and the dry_run safety model. No essential information for correct invocation is missing.

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 dry_run with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing the default and the safety semantics: dry_run=true previews what will happen, while dry_run=false actually publishes. That is useful beyond the schema's short label.

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 and resource ('Publish the whole site live') and immediately clarifies the scope as site-level rather than per-page. This distinguishes it from page-editing siblings like update_page or update_page_source.

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?

Clearly explains that publishing happens at the site level and affects every saved page, giving strong context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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