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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that the destructive effect is limited to the live URL, not the artifact itself, and that the subdomain is reused on republish. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the exact scope of the destructive action. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for this tool the key behavioral disclosure is well covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core action and effect come first, followed by exclusions, then parameter details and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with bold fields and a returns line makes it scannable.

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 tool with a simple output ({ success, message }), the description covers the action, the scope of the destructive effect, the required parameter, how to get it, and the inverse operation. There is no output schema, but the return shape is stated inline. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 sessionId. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how to obtain sessionId (returned by artifact-create, or extracted from the URL's last path segment), which is genuinely useful beyond the schema's one-line description. This is above the baseline 3.

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 ('Take an EXISTING published artifact offline'), a clear resource (published artifact), and the effect (clears its live URL so the deployed site stops being reachable). It also explicitly names the inverse sibling (artifact-publish), which distinguishes it from other artifact tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it (for an existing published artifact) and what it does NOT do (does not delete artifact/code/content). It also names the inverse sibling artifact-publish, giving the agent a clear alternative. It even explains how to derive sessionId from an artifact URL, which is practical usage guidance.

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