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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds two behavioral constraints: it only changes access on explicit request, and it does not manage DNS/TLS. These are useful but minimal additions, and no contradictions are present.

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 a single short sentence, but it is cryptic and not front-loaded with actionable information. The qualifier 'on explicit request only; DNS/TLS remain separate' is placed after the main clause and does not clarify the tool's core behavior.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and only a vague one-sentence description, this is severely incomplete. The annotations carry the safety profile, but an agent cannot know what states mean, how protection works, or what expected_revision is for. Major operational detail is missing.

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 description provides no meaning for any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain the state enum (brouillon, public, protege), protection, password, domaine/sous_domaine, dry_run, or expected_revision. The description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 title 'Publish, protect or close a shelf' states a specific verb and resource, and the description clarifies it controls publication/access. It reasonably distinguishes from sibling tools like foliade_set_catalogue_access by targeting 'shelf' rather than 'catalogue'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as foliade_publish_catalogue or foliade_set_catalogue_access. The only hint is 'shelf' in the title, and the description's 'explicit request only' is too indirect to serve as usage direction.

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