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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by noting the change hits both gallery and sitemap and that the publication link is unchanged, a key reversibility/non-destructive detail not in the 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the 'Link unchanged' clause earns its place as a behavioral note. Zero waste.

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 mutation tool that has full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It omits auth/ownership requirements and error behavior for non-public IDs, but those are minor given the enum already restricts 'type' to public-listing types.

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 description coverage is 100%, with 'listed' documented as false=hide/true=show and type constraints given in the enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (hide/show) and resource (publication) with the concrete effect on gallery and sitemap. It clearly distinguishes the toggle action from sibling publish_*/update_* tools, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 effect implies when to use it (toggling listing), but there is no explicit when/when-not or condition that separates it from alternatives like publish_*. Prerequisites such as the publication being public or caller ownership are left implicit.

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