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

Describes behavioral traits: 'soft-unpublish' (non-destructive mutation), existing forks pinned to this version keep working, catalog hides template if no live version remains. Consistent with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Adds detail beyond 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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences. Front-loaded with core purpose in first sentence, then behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, owner-only restriction, side effects on forks and catalog visibility. With output schema present, return value explanation is not needed. Could mention idempotency or error cases but not necessary for this simple operation.

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% and already provides descriptions for both parameters (version number, template_id as UUID or handle). Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Clearly states 'Soft-unpublish a single template version' with specific verb 'soft-unpublish' and resource 'template version'. Distinguishes from siblings like publish_template_version, deprecate_template_version, and delete_template_version. Also notes owner-only restriction.

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?

Provides clear context: behavior regarding forks and catalog hiding when no live version remains. Implies use case for removing from catalog without breaking forks. However, lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like delete_template_version or deprecate_template_version.

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