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

Annotations already flag destructiveNotReadOnly/openWorld, but the description adds substantial extra context: which admin token is required (and which is rejected), the admin_token_invalid error meaning and remediation, and v4 vs v5 divergence in effect. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 then proceeds parameter-by-parameter; every section is useful. The admin-token error-handling passage is somewhat verbose and could be trimmed, but nothing is wasted noise.

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 auth, version differences, single-type edge cases, all parameters, and error conditions; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and does: it defines collection (API-ID format, disallowed plugin routes, invalid_collection error), entry_id (documentId or numeric, format, invalid_id error), locale (i18n language selection, default), and workspace (slug, optional with single workspace).

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 (depublizieren) and resource (Strapi-Eintrag) plus scope (aus der öffentlichen API nehmen). Clearly distinguishable from sibling strapi_publish_entry without opening the 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 rich context on version-specific behavior (v5 content-manager action vs v4 publishedAt=null) and token prerequisites. It does not explicitly name strapi_publish_entry as the inverse alternative, keeping it just below the top score.

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