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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context: the public page becomes not-found, and the operation requires a signed-in, non-PRO account. It does not say whether a revoked CV can be re-published or whether existing links are permanently invalidated, which would complete the destructive-action picture.

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 tight sentences; the effect (page returns not found) is front-loaded alongside the verb, and the id-sourcing note follows. No wasted prose.

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-parameter destructive tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, this covers effect, prerequisites, and id origin. The only omission is the reversibility question (whether the user can restore the CV afterwards), which matters for a destructive action.

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, including the stealthId's dual origin. The description repeats that sourcing hint rather than adding new semantics, and never mentions the locale parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Take one of the user's published stealth (anonymised) CVs offline') with the concrete observable consequence that the public page returns not found. It is clearly distinct from the publishing sibling create_takemeup_stealth_cv, which is named as the source of the id.

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?

States the operating condition clearly ('Signed-in; not PRO') and points at create_takemeup_stealth_cv as where the id comes from. It does not discuss when not to revoke (e.g. vs. leaving a CV up or unpublishing in the UI), so it falls short of the 5 bar for explicit alternatives.

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