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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that login is required, that only PUBLISHED/ARCHIVED transitions are allowed, and that other statuses are system-managed. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the auth note, then the action and constraint, then the prerequisite. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover auth, state constraints, idempotency/safety, and how to obtain both inputs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by saying productId must come from get_my_products (ownership context) and that status must be one of the two allowed states, which is helpful beyond the bare schema labels.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('switch/publish/unpublish') and resource ('my product') and narrows the operation to exactly two states, PUBLISHED ⇄ ARCHIVED. This distinguishes it from broader siblings like update_my_product and set_collaboration_task_status without opening schemas.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: call get_my_products first to obtain productId and current status, and states login is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'only these two states' constraint implicitly scopes when to use it.

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