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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the address stops answering immediately, the public copy is deleted, the underlying table and records remain, and republishing creates a new link while the old one never returns. These details clarify the destructive and idempotent effects declared by 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 four tight sentences, front-loads the core action, then adds trigger examples and key consequences. Every sentence contributes useful selection or behavioral 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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens to the public address, the public copy, the underlying records, and future links. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and understand the effects.

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 single tableSlug parameter is fully described in the schema as “Which published table to take down,” and the description adds only broad context about the published table. With 100% schema coverage, the schema carries parameter semantics sufficiently; the description does not add format or identifier details.

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 and resource: “Stop serving a published table.” It distinguishes the operation from deletion by saying “The table and its records are untouched,” and clearly contrasts with publish by noting a later publish creates a NEW link.

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?

Gives concrete user phrases that should trigger it: “unpublish this table,” “take this board down,” “revoke that data link,” or “make this private again.” It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as table_delete, but the “records are untouched” line implicitly clarifies when this is not a delete operation.

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