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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds useful state context (default-public behavior for new sites, reversibility of the lock), but it never explains why destructiveHint is flagged or what exposure making a site public creates. Adequate but not rich beyond the 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and the default-state caveat front-loaded before the when-to-use routing. Every clause carries information.

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 two-param toggle with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, inverse case, and default behavior. It lacks only the return/confirmation behavior and any propagation delay note, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100%: both site_id and the public boolean are already documented inline with the same true/public, false/auth mapping. The description restates 'public=false' semantics without adding format or edge-case detail, so 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?

States a specific verb (make publicly accessible / re-protect) and resource (code site), and names the concrete mechanism (disable Vercel Authentication). An agent can distinguish this from code_set_domain, code_status, or delete_site without opening a 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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition ('when a site shows a Vercel login/SSO screen instead of loading') and the inverse case ('to lock a site behind auth (public=false)'). It also pre-empts a likely misuse by noting new sites are already public by default, so the tool need not be called for them.

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