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

Annotations already declare the tool destructive, idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds important behavioral context: the public URL stops serving immediately, the action is not a rollback, and the user should confirm first. These details go meaningfully 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?

The description is four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate effect, followed by the rollback distinction and confirmation instruction. There is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter destructive lifecycle tool, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough context to invoke it correctly. It covers immediate effect, non-rollback semantics, alternative workflow, and user confirmation.

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 the single 'id' parameter already has a clear description in the schema ('Project UUID (from list_projects)'). The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Take a published site offline.' It also distinguishes the action from rollback, which helps the agent understand exactly what this tool does versus related lifecycle operations.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use this tool ('Take a published site offline') and when not to use it for version rollback, naming restore_checkpoint and deploy_project as the alternative path. It also explicitly says to confirm with the user first.

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