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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the change is limited to the existing publication and explicitly preserves private projects and exports, which bounds the blast radius. It still doesn't say whether unpublishing is reversible, but it adds real value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with the scope caveat second. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a destructive mutation with a required idempotencyKey, the description says nothing about the idempotency contract or error cases, leaving a real gap.

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 description coverage is only 33% — workspaceId and idempotencyKey carry no descriptions, and assetId is documented merely as 'UUID string'. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap; an agent must infer that assetId selects the clip page.

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 — 'Disable public access to the selected clip page' — which is clearly distinct from clip_share_publish and clip_share_visibility_set. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'Changes an existing publication' implies the precondition that a publication exists, and hints at scope, but it never says when to use this versus clip_share_visibility_set or clip_share_publish, nor what happens if no publication exists. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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