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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that deletion is permanent, that publishing performs a pre-check on files and refuses password-protected pages, and that each call costs 1 credit. It omits permission/auth requirements and failure behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 plus a short cost note; the primary capabilities are front-loaded and no wording is wasted. Appropriate length for a two-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it covers the mutation semantics, the pre-flight check, and cost. It leaves unstated what the call returns and whether unpublish is reversible, minor gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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 only 50% — site_id is documented but the action parameter has no schema description. The description compensates by spelling out the three operation modes in prose, giving the enum semantic grounding even though it doesn't map labels to outcomes as explicitly as it could.

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 names the resource (a site) plus its three concrete operations — 'make a site live at its public URL, take it offline, or delete it permanently' — which map to the publish/unpublish/delete enum. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like site_create, site_list, or site_files purely from the text.

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 establishes the context in which the tool applies (publishing, unpublishing, permanent deletion) and gives a precondition for one action: pages with password fields cause publishing to be refused. It does not name alternatives for adjacent tasks (e.g., use site_create for a new site), so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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