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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent and open-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new context: what survives the operation (content, id, URL, view count), what viewers see, and the failure mode page_not_found for out-of-space ids. It also compensates for the absence of an output schema by naming the return shape { ok, id, live }.

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 and preserved-state guarantee, then layers reversal, sibling routing, idempotency and error behavior in four tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

Complete for a two-parameter mutation tool: state transition, reversibility, idempotency, sibling alternative, return shape and error case are all covered despite there being no output schema and only a small parameter surface.

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 100%, including the page_id sourcing hint and the restore flag semantics, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description restates restore: true without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (take offline / restore) and resource (page), and precisely explains the resulting state: URL shows an offline notice while id, URL, content and view count are preserved. It explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_page, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Prefer this over delete_page when the human wants a page hidden or paused.' It also explains how to reverse the action (restore: true) and states that repeated calls are harmless, covering the main when-to-use and when-to-repeat questions.

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