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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a meaningful side effect: the target's alert channels are removed from the page's monitors. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not discuss permissions, reversibility, or response details.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the key side effect are front-loaded.

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 simple mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation, recipient types, and side effect. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting the share_page alternative or required prerequisites.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds value by clarifying that account_id and team_id represent the two possible recipients and that account_id can be obtained from get_page.

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 states a specific verb and resource: stop sharing a page, with the target being either an account or a team. It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools such as share_page and make_page_private.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying it stops sharing with an account or team, and it notes that account_id comes from get_page. However, it does not explicitly contrast with share_page or make_page_private, nor does it state when-not to use it.

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