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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: reverts to private, removes from author's profile, excludes from public reputation. This goes beyond annotations, providing concrete effects. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise, using three sentences. The first sentence states the main action and effect, the second adds context (inverse and constraints), and the third is a note on tier. Some might consider the tier note extraneous, but it doesn't detract. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simple parameter (one required ID), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, effect, ownership constraint, idempotency. It doesn't detail error scenarios or return format, but the output schema likely handles that. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has one parameter, thesis_id, with schema coverage 100% (description in schema: 'Id returned by save_thesis or list_theses'). The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: reverting a published thesis to private. It specifies the action (revert), the resource (thesis), and the scope (published public or unlisted). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's the inverse of publish_thesis, and contrasts with delete_thesis by only unpublishing.

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 gives explicit usage guidelines: owner-only, idempotent. It explains the effect (removes from profile and reputation aggregate), implying when to use (when you need to unpublish). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context and inverse relation to publish_thesis provide adequate guidance.

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