Unpublish a remote link, deleting its stored bytes immediately and returning the link to local residency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | Label of the published (remote) link to unpublish. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this operation destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that stored bytes are deleted immediately and that the link returns to local residency. This gives the agent a clearer understanding of side effects.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the primary action and then supplies the most important behavioral details. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy with the annotations or 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?
For a destructive, single-parameter operation, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it deletes, and what the resulting state is. There is no output schema, so return-value documentation would be nice, but the core decision to invoke the tool and expectation of effect are sufficiently covered.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single 'label' parameter with a clear description, so the schema carries the burden. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, but none are really needed given 100% schema coverage.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Unpublish a remote link.' It further clarifies the effect ('returning the link to local residency'), which distinguishes this from sibling tools like revoke_link or unprotect_link. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 implies the tool should be used when a remote link should be unpublished and returned to local residency. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over siblings such as revoke_link or unprotect_link, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The lifecycle tools (serve, stop_remote, protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link) are clearly distinct. The only ambiguity is between account_status and links, which both report usage, live tunnels, and owned-link counts, though one is an account-level summary and the other a detailed link listing.
Most tools follow a clear lowercase verb_noun pattern (protect_link, renew_link, revoke_link, unprotect_link, stop_remote). The main inconsistency is that query tools are nouns (account_status, links) and serve is a bare verb, but the style remains readable and predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a serve-and-link-management server: one publish action, one unpublish action, four protection lifecycle operations, and two query/status tools. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
The set covers the full remote-link lifecycle: publish content, stop/unpublish it, list links, check account status, and protect/renew/revoke/unprotect access. No obvious dead ends or critical missing operations for the stated purpose.
