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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: what is NOT mutated (draft source, version history), reversibility of the change, and the absence of a lease prerequisite. The destructiveHint=true annotation covers the public-facing impact, and the description reconciles it by clarifying the operation is reversible rather than data-destroying.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (effect, side-effect safety, prerequisite), with the primary effect front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, what stays intact, reversibility, and auth/lease prerequisites. It does not state what happens if the site is already unpublished or what callers should expect on failure, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.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 description coverage is 0% and the single websiteId parameter is never mentioned in the description. It is self-evident as the target website identifier, so the practical risk is low, but no meaning is added beyond the bare string in the schema.

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 — 'takes the website offline' — which unambiguously reads as the inverse of websiteSourceCode_head_publish and is distinct from published_rollback. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives the two decision-relevant conditions: the draft head is preserved so it 'can be published again later' (pointing implicitly at head_publish for reversal), and 'no edit lease is required', which pre-empts an unnecessary lease_acquire call. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it.

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