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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: exact URL patterns (docs.{baseDomain}/{slug}/{lineKey} and openapi.json), the 404 behavior when disabled, the `docsShared` reflection field, and the edit-access requirement. This goes 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?

The description is three sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives behavioral specifics, and the third notes the access requirement. Every sentence earns its place with distinct information, and there is no redundancy or vague wording.

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 toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, observable effects (URLs, field state), and prerequisites. It doesn't elaborate on commitMode behavior, but that's already in the schema. The description is sufficient to guide invocation, though noting whether changes take effect immediately or on publish could add clarity.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of `enabled` and the `commitMode`/`draftRevision` relationship. The description adds minimal extra parameter-level meaning beyond concrete URL context for `lineKey`. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate significantly beyond that.

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 opens with 'Turn the line's public OpenAPI docs on or off,' which is a specific verb and resource with a clear state change. It further explains the effect on URLs and the `docsShared` field, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'deactivate_line' or 'publish_line_draft'.

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 gives clear context: it's for toggling public docs, with URL behavior explaining what 'enabled' means. It states 'Requires edit access' as a prerequisite, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling tool list shows many set_* actions, but this one's domain is unambiguous.

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