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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial nuance the annotation cannot: the draft and its history are preserved, so 'destructive' means only the public surface goes dark. It also discloses required scopes (demos:read, demos:publish), which no structured field conveys.

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?

Two short sentences: effect first, then preservation/reversal, then permissions. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant fact (link and embeds go dark) leads.

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 single-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: the visible consequence, what survives, how to undo it, and the auth scopes required. Nothing material 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 100% and the single demoId parameter is fully documented with a pattern and a source hint (list_demos), so the description adds nothing here. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 a demo offline') and immediately defines the observable effect: hosted link and embeds stop showing it. This cleanly separates it from publish_demo and the delete_* siblings, which is exactly what an agent needs to pick correctly.

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?

It names the reverse operation (publish_demo) and makes clear this is a reversible takedown rather than a deletion, which implicitly routes agents away from delete/destroy options. It does not explicitly state a 'do not use when' case, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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