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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true): it explains async nature, that the reserved URL is kept, and specifies the exact error code (BUCKET_VISIBILITY_CHANGE_LOCKED) and its resolution (web-UI unlock, ask user). This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by usage conditions and error handling. Every sentence delivers essential information without redundancy or padding. It is concise yet comprehensive for a tool with async behavior and error states.

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 tool's complexity (async workflow, error condition, dependency on bucket_list and bucket_publication_get), the description fully covers usage context, prerequisites, and error handling. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The description is complete for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for bucket_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics, but it does reference the parameter indirectly through context (e.g., 'bucket_list says required_action'). No score above baseline is warranted since the schema already handles parameter 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 the primary function: 'Queue an async unpublish of a bucket website while keeping the reserved URL.' The verb 'unpublish' is specific, the resource is identified, and the 'async' and 'keeping the reserved URL' details distinguish it from sibling tools like bucket_publish or bucket_delete_permanently.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use before archive/delete when bucket_list says required_action is unpublish_first, then check bucket_publication_get separately until status is unpublished before archiving or deleting.' This gives a clear when-to-use condition and workflow, and the failure mode (visibility locked) with user action further clarifies appropriate usage.

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