online_html

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

The description discloses important side effects (no snapshot, no silent old file usage, restores original siteId path) and prerequisite (local directory enabled). However, despite the destructiveHint annotation, it does not explicitly describe the destructive nature of the operation beyond saying it makes the page public again.

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 dense but every sentence carries useful information: the action, the no-snapshot behavior, the online/offline condition, the timeout verification scenario, and the local directory prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description includes the main outcome, prerequisites, a specific failure-recovery scenario, and the alternative tool to use. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it, especially given the schema and annotations already cover parameter details.

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?

All three parameters are described with constraints, including mutual exclusivity between siteId and siteUrl, allowed URL fragments and no query parameters, and localPath size/encoding requirements. The description also reinforces that localPath must be user-specified and not silently chosen from old files.

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 re-publishes a registered offline page, reads the user-specified HTML, and restores the original siteId path, with a note not to write snapshots. It also distinguishes itself from publish_html by specifying the condition when publish_html should be used instead.

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?

It provides explicit conditions: cloud must not exist; if already online, use publish_html; and it mentions the prerequisite of local directory being enabled. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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