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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by explaining what actually happens: reader access is removed immediately, the document is retained privately, republishing needs a slot or Plus, and copied/downloaded content may remain. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotation, including an important warning about over-limit Free owners.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key behavioral effects and the Free-plan warning. Every sentence contributes useful guidance without repetition.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations already covering safety, the description adds enough context about outcomes, republishing constraints, and residual access to let an agent invoke it correctly and warn appropriately.

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?

There is only one parameter, whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' field. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high coverage but leaves no extra value.

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 states a specific verb ('withdraw') and resource ('a published document'), clarifies the resulting state ('retaining it privately'), and distinguishes the tool from the sibling publish_document (which handles the reverse action) and delete_document (which removes the document entirely).

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 clearly states when to use it ('when the owner wants to withdraw a published document from readers') and mentions that republishing uses the same link. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context of reader access removal makes it obvious.

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