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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds the concrete effects the annotations cannot: the page, map and Phorme connector stop listing it, while details and classes are retained for re-publishing. It also discloses the auth prerequisite (a connected Phorme account that owns the place) and the consent gate. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the triggering condition and consent requirement, then effects, then prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information (when, how to confirm, what changes, what is retained, auth need) with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: the consent workflow, the partial (non-deleting) nature of the action, reversibility, and the account-ownership prerequisite. Nothing actionable 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 100%, so place_id's provenance and confirmation's meaning are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirmation rule ('set confirmation to true only after they said yes'), adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('an owner wants their place off Phorme') and conveys scope precisely, including the reversibility ('can be put live again') that distinguishes it from the sibling publish_place. An agent can tell this is a takedown operation without opening either schema.

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?

It gives clear triggering context ('Use this when an owner wants their place off Phorme for now') and a procedural precondition ('Confirm with the owner first'). It does not name the alternative (publish_place) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of explicit routing, but the context is unambiguous.

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