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

The description adds several behavioral notes beyond annotations: it never publishes a draft, never returns the password, and domain declaration does not configure DNS/TLS. These are useful and not contradicted by annotations (destructiveHint true).

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 brief and has no filler, but it is not front-loaded with the main purpose; it opens with a caveat rather than the core function. Structure could be improved by leading with 'Sets catalogue protection and addresses'.

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 destructive, open-world tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, return value expectations, and usage context compared to alternatives.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters. The agent has to rely solely on the schema's type/enum/default info, which is insufficient for parameters like 'expected_revision' or 'domaine'.

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 says 'Changes access on explicit request only' but does not state the resource (catalogue) or the specific operation (setting protection and addresses). The title is clear, but the description is vague, so an agent may not know exactly what it does.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like foliade_publish_catalogue or foliade_set_shelf_access. It only hints that it should be used on explicit request, but does not compare with alternatives.

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