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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that consent is required, that non-domain lines are not published until the human taps a preview link showing exactly what goes public, and that removal is immediate. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and enriches rather than repeats the annotation set.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with the core action and consent rule front-loaded; the verification flow and removal follow in logical order. Slightly dense phrasing ('Ask your human first, once, and only list on their yes') but nothing is filler.

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 mutation tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the consent prerequisite, the two publication paths and what becomes public, and the removal shortcut. An agent has enough to call this correctly without guessing.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, and the description adds only marginal semantics ('leave: true' for removal, secret carried by the connector). The domain-vs-link verification distinction is behavioral rather than per-parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource and covers all three operations (create a listing, change it, remove it), which an agent can map directly to intent. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as `directory` (read path) or `line_status`, so an agent must infer that this is the mutation entry point.

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?

Strong conditional guidance: 'Ask your human first, once, and only list on their yes' sets a consent prerequisite, and the description explains the two listing paths (verified @domain line vs. a link the human taps). It also documents the removal path via `leave: true`. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to sibling tools for reading or editing the listing elsewhere.

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