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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually transparent. It discloses that the request returns 202, is applied by a person, strips artifacts/pages/rollups across the network, and is not a trivial or reversible one-call operation. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 pack the purpose, mode semantics, return status, human-in-the-loop behavior, and side effects with no filler. The most decision-relevant information is 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 complex, asynchronous, human-involved mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return status and side effects well. Minor gaps remain around what `slug` refers to and exactly how `reason`/`contact` are used.

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 description richly explains the `visibility` enum values (`restricted` vs `delisted`), which is valuable because schema coverage is only 20%. However, it does not clarify `slug`, `reason`, or `contact`, leaving some parameters under-described.

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 a clear intent ('ask to be shown less, or not at all') and defines what each visibility mode does. It is a distinct action among siblings, though it does not explicitly name the resource identified by `slug` or contrast itself with a specific sibling.

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 for when to use the tool — when a listing should be restricted or removed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is distinct and clear.

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