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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: immediate 404s, preservation of endpoints/targets/config, reversibility, and the guarantee that live traffic is never auto-disabled. It also discloses a permission requirement. There is no contradiction with 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, with the primary action and immediate consequence in the first clause. Every phrase adds value, including reversibility, preservation, and permission. No filler or 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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational context: what happens to traffic, what is preserved, reversibility, permission required, and that it is deliberate. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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%, so lineKey, commitMode, and draftRevision are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('take off') and resource ('line'), states the immediate effect (callers get 404), and explicitly distinguishes from deletion by noting configuration is preserved and the line can be reactivated. This clearly separates it from siblings like delete_line and activate_line.

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 contrasts with deletion ('without deleting it — endpoints/targets/config are preserved and it can be reactivated later'), implying it is for temporary removal while preserving state. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires edit access') and notes it is a deliberate action. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions beyond deletion.

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