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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description goes beyond them by scoping the destruction precisely: only public availability is removed, while the draft and revision history survive, which is exactly the consequence an agent needs to reason about before calling. It does not mention auth requirements or whether unpublishing an already-unpublished page is a no-op.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the outcome front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries meaning: the action, the target, and the preserved state.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need not be described) and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral outcome. The remaining gap is the undocumented editToken requirement, which is a meaningful omission for a write tool.

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 0% and neither pageId nor editToken is documented in the schema. The description only implies that pageId must reference a published page; it says nothing about the editToken's role or format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (remove from public availability) and resource (published landing page), and implicitly separates itself from page_publish and from a hypothetical hard-delete by noting the draft and revision history are retained. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'published landing page' – the tool only applies to pages currently live. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the page_publish alternative or of prerequisites such as holding a valid editToken.

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