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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the meaningful clarification that the post 'leaves the site' rather than being deleted, and that editor-level permissions are required. It does not disclose whether content, tags, or scheduling metadata are retained, which matters given the destructiveHint=false claim. Adds value beyond annotations, but not richly.

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?

It is short with no filler, but the telegraphic fragment style ('On one site of the account, named in site.') pushes the actual action into the second sentence. Front-loading the state transition would make it faster to parse.

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 two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers scope, the state transition, and the permission gate — enough to call it correctly. The one residual gap is post_id semantics, which is left entirely to an undocumented schema field.

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 50%: 'site' is documented in the schema and merely echoed here, while post_id is undocumented in both places. The description does not clarify whether post_id is site-scoped or global, which is the one ambiguity an agent would want resolved. Baseline 3 for a two-parameter tool with partial 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 names a specific state transition — 'Back to a draft: a published or scheduled post leaves the site' — which clearly separates it from publish_post and delete_post. The opening clause 'On one site of the account, named in site' is scope framing rather than purpose, and the verb 'unpublish' is only implied by the title, so it falls short of a clean 5.

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?

'a published or scheduled post leaves the site' implies the preconditions for calling it, and 'Editors and above' states the required permission level, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never names publish_post or delete_post as alternatives, nor does it say what to do for a post that is already a draft.

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