publish_html

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it makes HTML public, does not create snapshots, and only writes the current object. It also details the expectedSha256 conflict-check requirement. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description elaborates on specific side effects and constraints, enhancing transparency.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers the update workflow, offline page handling, and public exposure. It is concise without wasted words, though it could benefit from slight separation of concerns. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key workflow prerequisites (get_html before update), the expectedSha256 requirement, the public exposure side effect, and the distinction from online_html for offline pages. It does not describe error cases or output, but given the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds a workflow hint about reusing siteId or siteUrl for updates and pairing expectedSha256, but these are also reflected in the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not introduce significant new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: to publish user-specified HTML for the first time or overwrite an existing online page. It specifies the resource (HTML) and the action (publish/overwrite), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the update workflow involving get_html and the distinction from offline_html/online_html.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for first-time publishing or updating the same URL. It also instructs to call get_html first when updating, reuse siteId or validated siteUrl, and pass the returned sha256. It explicitly states that offline pages must be restored with online_html, providing a clear alternative. It could be more explicit about when NOT to use this tool, but the context is strong.

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