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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive effect (404), what is preserved (deploy files), how to reverse it (rollback_deploy or new deploy), and what is explicitly out of scope ('Does not change the gallery listing'). It stops short of permissions/auth requirements or propagation timing, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the headline effect is front-loaded before reversibility and scope caveats. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the description covers effect, reversibility, and non-side-effects well enough for an agent to call it confidently. Missing only edge-case behavior (e.g. unpublishing an already-offline site) and any parameter guidance.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description should compensate and does not — projectId is never mentioned or explained. Its name is largely self-evident, so the cost is modest, but no format, scope, or sourcing guidance is added beyond the schema.

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 ('Take a project's Codebase-hosted site offline') and even defines the observable result (address answers 404). The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling codebase_unpublish, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the reversibility sentence ('codebase_rollback_deploy or a new deploy brings it back') tells the agent this is a safe temporary action, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no guidance on choosing this over codebase_unpublish.

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