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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'repeating the same value is idempotent' largely restates structured data. It does add genuinely new context, though: the authorization requirement ('Requires full access') and the concrete consequence ('Unpublishing removes public access'), which annotations cannot convey. With no output schema referenced for return shape, this is a solid but not exceptional supplement to the annotation profile.

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 tight sentences with the operation and target front-loaded, followed by auth, side effect, and the parameter constraint. Nothing is padded, though the idempotency clause is close to redundant with the annotation.

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 destructive toggle tool it covers the essentials an agent needs: what is mutated, the permission bar, the irreversible-looking side effect, idempotent retry safety, and the parameter exclusivity rule. Return values are covered by the existing output schema, so no gap there; only explicit alternative routing 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%, and each property already documents its own either/or pairing, so the baseline is 3. The description does add one thing the schema does not: the cross-parameter exclusivity rule ('Pass exactly one of list_id, list_name, view_id, or view_name'), which resolves ambiguity about whether a list and a view could be supplied together.

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 opens with a precise verb pair ('Publish or unpublish') and a specific resource ('a List or View at its stable public link'), which is enough to separate it from update_list/update_view. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 supplies clear preconditions ('Requires full access') and a caution ('confirm that intent' before unpublishing), which tells the agent when this call is safe to make. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_list for non-public changes, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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