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

With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already given, the description earns credit by narrowing what is actually destroyed: the version stays ACTIVE and only loses traffic. That materially softens the destructive signal. It stops short of saying whether the state is reversible or how to restore traffic.

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 short sentences, zero redundant wording, and the primary effect is stated first with the important caveat second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to act correctly and to predict the post-state. The only gap is the pointer back to which sibling re-deploys the version.

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 100% with only two parameters, both already documented (memo as undeploy reason, groupId as policy group ID). The description adds no further meaning to either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ("Remove the live version from traffic") that makes the operation concrete and separable from siblings such as lexq_deploy_publish or lexq_deploy_rollback. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the effect: an agent can infer this is the way to take a version out of serving without deleting it. The description never says when to choose undeploy versus rollback, publish, or unschedule, which matters given a large sibling surface.

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