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

Annotations only say destructive=true and openWorld=true; the description adds the crucial behavioral facts that recordings and lyrics survive, that a subset of songs is ineligible, and what to tell the user after success. It also directly resolves the destructive-hint tension by clarifying this is a page take-down, not a data deletion.

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 the action and the critical non-delete clarification, then triggers, exclusions, and parameter sourcing. Slightly redundant with repeated 'Do not call this delete' / 'not removed this way' framing, but every sentence carries actionable 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?

Covers the action, exclusions, parameter sourcing, and required post-success messaging, which is more than most mutation tools offer. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't describe the success/failure response shape or identify required parameters, so it is not fully complete.

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 revision_id as the source and revision_hash as the fallback from listen_url. The description restates the preference order and warns 'Do not invent revision ids,' but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('take down the public SoundBreak preview page for a song this user created') and immediately bounds it with 'Does not delete the recording.' This distinguishes it from an actual delete and from the generation/list siblings an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicit activation triggers ('take a song down, remove the listen page, or unlist a preview') plus hard exclusions ('Songs on SoundBreak Radio or submitted for store distribution cannot be removed this way'). This is exactly the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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