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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context that data is not deleted—only the public link is closed. It also notes an explicit request is required, which is not in annotations. This adds transparency beyond the schema and aligns with openWorldHint but without contradiction.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional note about explicit request is placed second. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation.

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?

The description covers the outcome but omits parameter semantics entirely. It also doesn't clarify the role of guest_token or provide prerequisites (e.g., must be published first). Given schema coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated, but it leaves critical details unexplained.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter (catalogue_id or guest_token). The agent gets no help understanding what these parameters mean or how to fill them. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states it closes the public link for a catalogue, distinguishing it from sibling tools like foliade_publish_catalogue (the inverse) and deletion tools. The verb 'closes' plus the resource 'public link' gives a precise action.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention foliade_publish_catalogue or any other conditional context. The statement 'Requires an explicit request' is a precondition, not usage guidance. It leaves the agent to infer when unpublishing is appropriate.

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