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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior beyond that: the read-back verification before recording taken_down, the fact that the CMS document survives so re-approval reuses the same page, and the three refusal conditions. Minor deduction for the boilerplate 'Never returns API keys' which is irrelevant here.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs failure semantics into a compact block; nearly every sentence earns its place. The closing 'Never returns API keys' sentence is unsupported boilerplate that dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the authorization requirement, side effects, reversibility, and refusal cases for a destructive mutation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates the optional reason ('stored on the post'). No additional format, constraint, or identifier guidance is contributed beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('takes a published blog, FAQ or competitor page down from the website CMS') and adds the crucial qualifier that the post stays in Mark, which is what distinguishes it from delete_post and archive_post. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Names the precondition ('Workspace admins only') and the refusal conditions ('not live', 'collection has no drafts', 'unpublish cannot be confirmed'), and points at related tools. It gives clear context but never explicitly states when to prefer this over approve_posts/delete_post, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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