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

Annotations mark this destructive, and the description usefully corrects the impression by disclosing what survives (definition preserved, members untouched) and that it's reversible. It omits other operational context such as permission requirements or what happens to live traffic on the app's endpoints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its mechanism, then the boundary condition. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the single required param is fully described; the state change and scope of impact are stated. What's missing is only secondary context like auth/permission needs or downstream effects on published endpoints.

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% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema, including the last_published_version -> 0 effect. The description restates rather than extends that semantics, 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?

States a specific verb (hide/unpublish) and resource (app), plus the exact mechanism: last_published_version -> 0. The clause 'while preserving its definition; republish any version later' implicitly separates it from delete_app and publish_app, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Makes the use case clear: hide an app reversibly while keeping its definition, with republish available later. It doesn't explicitly name delete_app as the alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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