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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the tool is known to be destructive. The description adds valuable context: the hide is reversible ('republish any version later'), definition is preserved, and members are untouched. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the scope of destruction and side effects.

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 a single sentence that packs the key facts: the action, the effect, preservation, reversibility, and a side-effect (members). No filler or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what happens to the app, what is preserved, that it can be undone, and what is not affected. Nothing critical 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 the single parameter, and the parameter description already explains the effect ('last_published_version -> 0; definition preserved'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it relies entirely on the schema. 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 states a specific action ('Hide an app'), the target resource (app), and the concrete effect (last_published_version -> 0). It clearly distinguishes from delete_app by emphasizing definition preservation and from publish_app as the inverse. This is precise and 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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: to hide an app while keeping its definition for later republishing. It also notes that members are unaffected, which helps avoid using it when member changes are intended. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to delete_app or other alternatives, so it's not a full when/when-not guide.

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