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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating/safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the '(take it offline)' state-change framing and does not disclose reversibility, whether the post loses its URL/is removed from listings, or any permission requirement — useful context, but thin beyond the annotations.

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?

One-line purpose statement plus a compact Args block; the action is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted. Well sized for a two-parameter mutation.

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 both parameters are at least named with post_id documented in useful detail. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the missing reversibility/state-effect note, which matters for a tool sitting next to delete_cms_post.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful detail for post_id: it accepts either the UUID from the list response or the full form 'cms-post-data-<uuid>'. This resolves a real ambiguity that the bare string schema leaves open. project_id gets only a tautological gloss ('The project ID'), which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Unpublish a CMS blog post') and clarifies the effect with '(take it offline)'. It is distinguishable from publish_cms_post and update_cms_post by the verb, but it never contrasts with delete_cms_post, which is the genuinely ambiguous sibling (both take a post offline).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no prerequisites. The description never tells the agent why it would unpublish rather than delete, or whether unpublishing is the reversible alternative to deletion in this CMS.

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