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

Beyond annotations, the description explains that listed false removes the slug from the gallery immediately, password-protected sites cannot be listed, new site versions re-run gallery checks, and text may be moderated via deed.page and the OpenAI moderation API. This adds meaningful side-effect, eligibility, and validation context for a destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then covers inputs, returns, removal behavior, eligibility, and moderation checks. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though some summarized parameter details duplicate the schema.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing return-field overview, conditional requirements, immediate-removal behavior, and listing constraints. It gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters, enums, and constraints. The description summarizes conditional requirements and the token, but largely repeats what the schema provides rather than adding substantial new parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: setting or clearing a public gallery listing for a slug. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_badge or set_site_access, and an agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The description gives clear conditions: listed true requires category/title/description, listed false removes the slug immediately, and password-protected sites cannot be listed. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but no obvious sibling alternative exists and the usage context is well stated.

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