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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it never publishes a draft, the password is never returned, and declaring a domain does not configure DNS/TLS. These are non-obvious side-effect and security facts the agent could not infer from 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?

The content is short, but the fragmented line breaks and the somewhat uninformative opener ('Changes access on explicit request only') dilute front-loading. The most useful routing sentence is buried in the middle.

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, 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the domain/protection angle and some side effects but leaves dry_run, expected_revision concurrency semantics, and protection behavior undocumented. An agent could still mis-invoke on these gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It hints at password and address parameters but says nothing about the protection enum values (keep/none/password), dry_run, or expected_revision despite these being central to correct invocation.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource ('sets the password and the addresses') and names the sibling it is not for ('to make a draft public, use foliade_publish_catalogue'). The opening line 'Changes access on explicit request only' is slightly vague, but the second sentence grounds the purpose clearly enough to distinguish it from related tools.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative for the publish case ('use foliade_publish_catalogue') and a scope exclusion ('Declaring a domain does not configure DNS/TLS; activation remains a separate operation'). It doesn't cover when dry_run or protection=keep should be chosen, but the routing guidance is clear.

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