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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial context: the design and address are preserved and republishing is possible, the confirmation-token handshake guards the destructive step, and unknown outcomes must be reconciled via iter0_publish_status. It also discloses the owner-only authorization requirement, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect of the call, then the safety protocol, then the recovery path. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the short fragment "Free." and minor repetition of the token flow keep it just short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, yet the description still flags the two things that matter operationally: a confirmationToken may come back, and an unknown-outcome result requires a follow-up check. Nothing needed to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds protocol-level meaning: the same designId must be reused on the second call and the token must be passed unchanged. That reinforces the two-phase contract beyond the field-level text in the schema.

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 and resource ("Takes a live site offline") plus the concrete consequence ("its address stops working"), which clearly separates it from iter0_publish_site and iter0_edit_site. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: first call with only designId, second call with the returned confirmationToken. It also names the fallback path (iter0_publish_status) when the outcome is unknown and says the token is reusable, so the agent knows exactly when and how to invoke.

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