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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds useful specifics: unpublishing causes embeds and PNGs to return HTTP 410, and the effect lasts until republishing. This goes beyond generic destructiveness by clarifying the operation is reversible and what observable behavior occurs.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key consequence is stated efficiently. It is less ideal because it leads with a side effect rather than an explicit action statement, but the title compensates for the missing verb.

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 tool with destructiveHint already annotated, the description provides the essential behavioral context: the 410 status and reversibility. It does not explain the id parameter or mention permissions, but the operation is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what the required 'id' refers to beyond the schema's bare string type. The tool name and title imply it is an asset id, but the description itself adds no parameter meaning, creating a low-coverage gap.

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 title 'Take an asset offline' and the tool name make the core action clear, and the description adds a concrete behavioral consequence: embeds and PNGs return 410 until republished. This distinguishes it from delete_asset and connects it to publish_asset, though the description itself never explicitly states 'unpublish this asset.'

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 'until republished' implies a reversible lifecycle and hints that publish_asset is the complementary operation, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose unpublish_asset over delete_asset or any other alternative, nor does it state prerequisites.

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