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

Annotations already indicate mutation, idempotency, and destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that the page is not deleted and the shareable URL stays stable. This goes beyond what the raw annotations alone communicate and helps set accurate expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase carries meaning: the action, the resource, and two important non-effects. It is an efficiently structured description.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core operation, what is preserved, and what does not change. Annotations supply idempotency and destructive-safety context, and no output schema is needed for a mutation like this. Nothing essential 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?

The schema has one required parameter, pageId, but description coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain it. However, the name 'pageId' plus the description's reference to 'a page' makes the parameter's meaning reasonably inferable. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the semantic gap is small.

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 offline'), a resource ('a page'), and scopes the operation by what it does not do ('without deleting it or changing its shareable URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_page and update_page. An agent can tell exactly what this tool accomplishes.

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 phrase 'without deleting it' implicitly signals when to choose unpublish_page over delete_page, and 'without changing its shareable URL' distinguishes it from update_page. It provides a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X when...'.

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