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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds context about the required confirm value and business access checks, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value: core action, prerequisite checks, required parameter value, and UI instructions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and schema descriptions, the description covers prerequisites and restrictions well but does not mention return values or the exact effect after unpublishing (e.g., confirmation message). It is adequate for a destructive tool but could be more complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter by stating it must be set to 'UNPUBLISH'. However, it does not describe 'sessionId' or 'communityId' beyond their names, which are self-explanatory but not explicitly clarified.

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 'Unpublish a one-on-one session' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'publish_session' or 'delete_session' by specifying the action and scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: requires confirm to be 'UNPUBLISH', mandates checking business permissions, calls out that FREE businesses cannot use it, and instructs to call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, including handling grace-period warnings and resubscribe links. This clearly tells when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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