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

The description discloses the externally visible effect of stopping the public URL, which complements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not mention reversibility or behavior if already unpublished, but this is not essential.

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?

A single, focused sentence that leads with the action and immediately states the consequence, with no filler or redundant detail.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. Mentioning how unpublishing relates to deletion or publishing could add context, but it is not required.

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 only parameter, endpoint_id, is fully covered by the schema description and the tool description simply repeats that phrasing, adding no additional meaning.

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?

Clearly describes the action ('take offline') and effect ('public URL stops serving content'). It is easily distinguished from delete_dynamic_endpoint and publish_dynamic_endpoint by focusing on availability rather than lifecycle.

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 implies the obvious use case and contrasts naturally with publish/delete, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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