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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the draft survives the operation, the call requires user confirmation, and it fails while an automation depends on the page. It stops short of covering downstream/external effects implied by openWorldHint (e.g., whether the live URL or automatic sends are affected).

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-loaded with purpose, then the confirmation requirement, then the failure mode. The final clause 'point it elsewhere or remove its button (update_automation), or delete it, first' stacks alternatives awkwardly and leaves 'it' slightly ambiguous, costing a point.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description supplies purpose, confirmation duty, and the blocking precondition. The only gap is the ambiguous referent in the remediation sentence, which an agent must parse to act 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the definition. The description adds no syntax or format detail about page_id; 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+resource ('take a page offline') and immediately distinguishes itself from delete_page by noting the draft is kept. An agent can tell this apart from publish_page and delete_page without opening any 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?

Explicitly instructs 'Ask the user first' and names the precise condition under which the call is refused (an automation sends the page or has a button opening it), then routes to concrete alternatives: update_automation to relocate/remove the button, or deletion. This is when/when-not plus alternatives, all present.

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