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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate danger. It does add real value beyond them: the concrete consequence (app reverts to draft, shared users lose access) and a confirmation requirement. The phrase 'Always asks the user first' is slightly ambiguous about who prompts, but the intent is conveyed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and then the alternative and confirmation requirement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive/idempotent profile is covered by annotations plus the described consequence. The only soft spot is the unclear actor in 'Always asks the user first', which could leave an agent unsure whether confirmation is its responsibility.

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?

There is a single parameter (appId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format or source, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is the baseline rather than added value.

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 (take a custom app offline) plus the concrete resulting state: back to draft, shared users lose access. It also names the inverse sibling app.publish, so an agent can separate publish from unpublish 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?

Names the alternative (app.publish) and the inverse condition, giving clear routing. It also signals that user confirmation is required. It stops short of explicitly stating when *not* to use it (e.g. already-draft apps), so it's clear context without full exclusions.

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