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

Annotations already indicate mutating and destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context far beyond those hints: the public URL stops working, the preview URL remains accessible to the owner, data connections continue to function, nothing is deleted, and the operation is reversible via publish_app. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and effect, then follows with explicit use-cases and reversibility. Every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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 state-transition tool, the description fully covers what happens, what does not happen, who retains access, how data behavior changes, and how to reverse the operation. No output schema is needed because the effects are described thoroughly, and the sibling get_app_preview_url covers any URL retrieval need.

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?

The schema covers the single app_id parameter 100%, so the description does not bear a heavy compensation burden. It adds the useful ownership qualifier ('an app YOU own'), which helps the agent avoid using arbitrary app IDs, but otherwise does not need to explain parameter mechanics further.

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?

The description uses a specific verb phrase ('Take an app YOU own back to private') and clearly identifies the resource and its effects: removal from the app store, public URL stops working, and the app remains available at the preview URL. It also explicitly distinguishes the action from publish_app, which is named as the reverse operation, making sibling differentiation effortless.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: when a user wants an app off the store, or before shipping a change not meant for public view. It also names the inverse alternative, publish_app, making the decision boundary clear without requiring the agent to infer anything.

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