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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the auth requirement ('requires admin') and the concrete effect ('hiding it from regular users'), which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, then adds the effect and a permission constraint in a compact format, ensuring every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter, mutating tool with full schema coverage and annotations describing idempotence and destructiveness, the description covers the essential user-facing effect and admin requirement. Nuances like reversibility or whether the template must currently be published are not explicitly stated, but these are largely inferable from the sibling template_publish tool and are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema provides full coverage for the only parameter (templateId) with a standard description, so the tool description is not required to add parameter-level detail. The description does not provide any additional semantic information about the parameter, which aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Unpublish') and a clear resource ('a template'), and immediately explains the operational effect ('hiding it from regular users'). This effect distinguishes the tool from sibling operations such as template_delete (permanent removal) and template_publish (the inverse action), so the purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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 gives a key prerequisite ('requires admin') and implies the use case (hiding a template from regular users), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like template_delete or template_publish, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is present but only implied rather than explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

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