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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=truecars, and the description adds meaningful specifics: the effect is immediate, access is lost through the shared link, recovery availability is conditional and surfaced in Carryo, and the action does not cancel a subscription. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

Three short sentences, with the primary effect and scope front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: immediate effect, reversibility caveat, and a non-goal. No 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the main action, the immediate consequence, recovery uncertainty, and a common misunderstanding. It does not describe how to obtain linkId, but the schema field description mitigates that gap.

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 already complete (100%): the only parameter, linkId, has a clear description. The tool description adds little new parameter meaning beyond implying the linkId identifies the shared link. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Unpublishes'), a precise subject ('existing Carryo website'), and a concrete effect ('viewers immediately lose access through its shared link'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like website.publish, website.edit, or website.read.

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 for when to use it: to take a website offline immediately. It also adds an exclusion ('does not cancel a subscription'), which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough that no alternative is needed.

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