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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: owner-only auth, high-impact mutation, the specific side effects (unlisting, releasing coaches), the subscriber precondition, and the confirm-gated preview-vs-execute behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and impact, then the precondition and confirmation requirement. No wasted words.

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 high-impact mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers effects, auth, prerequisites, and the confirmation gate well. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what the response returns, a minor 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 50% (only 'confirm' is documented). The description reinforces the confirm workflow and implies organizationId identifies the gym ('which gym'), but adds no format or constraint detail for organizationId, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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+resource ('Close a gym') and enumerates the concrete effects (unlists plans and public page, releases coaches), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like update_organization, delete_organization_location, or transfer_organization_ownership.

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?

Gives a strong precondition ('Blocked while gym-plan subscribers are live') and the confirm workflow, making the when/when-not clear. It does not name a sibling alternative for the blocked case, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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