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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that existing copies survive untouched, that the operation is idempotent, and that calling it on an app that is neither copyable nor listed is a no-op. This is valuable transparency for a destructive operation. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict that.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the scope, and the third explains idempotency. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what is turned off, what survives, and the no-op case. It could arguably mention the output/return value, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, app_id, with a clear description ('The app ID (UUID) to stop publishing as a template'). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Stop treating'), the resource ('a Charming app'), and the effect ('turn off copying for new visitors and clear any public listing'). It also distinguishes itself from related operations by noting that existing copies survive untouched, which helps an agent understand what this tool does and does not do.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to stop treating an app as a template. It also notes the idempotent behavior, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like set_template or unset_public, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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