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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: 'nothing built is deleted' scopes the bounded nature of the destruction, the concurrency guard via expected_version explains refused calls, and the terminal error text for never-promoted/already-demoted tables prevents retry loops.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then semantics, then constraints, then return shape. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the paragraph is dense enough that the example and the return-field list could be tightened without losing 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, plus it covers ordering relative to archive_table, the authorization precondition, error behavior, and the persistence model (built artifacts survive, promote_table restores serving). Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it shows the expected shape via example and explains provenance and purpose of expected_version ('pass from get_table so a table that moved in between is refused rather than withdrawn'), which is non-obvious concurrency semantics that the schema's minimum/maximum cannot convey.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('withdraws a table's live pointer and detaches its refresh schedule') with a plain-language consequence ('readers stop being served it and it stops refreshing') that an agent can act on. It explicitly contrasts with two siblings, promote_table (revives) and archive_table (requires demotion first).

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?

States a hard prerequisite ('must be demoted before archive_table will retire it'), an authorization condition ('only call it when the person you are working for has asked for it'), and an error-path instruction ('read get_table rather than retrying'). These are exactly the when/when-not/alternative cues an agent needs.

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