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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds value beyond them: the subdomain is released, and the agent is told to require user confirmation before acting. It doesn't cover reversibility or post-unpublish state, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive warning, with a pointer to a guide at the end. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, destructiveness, confirmation, and a guide pointer. The only real gap is the undocumented projectId parameter.

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 the single required parameter 'projectId' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about which project identifier is expected, 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 precise verb+resource ('take the published app offline') and even names the side effect ('release its subdomain'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling publish_app.

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 clear usage context: take the live app offline. It adds an operational precondition ('confirm with the user first') and routes the agent to get_guides('publishing') for detail. It does not explicitly name publish_app as the reverse alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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