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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a crucial behavioral trait beyond annotations: the action waits for the owner's approval, meaning it is asynchronous/pending rather than immediate. It does not explain what the agent should expect in the interim, but that is minor.

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?

Two short sentences with the state transition front-loaded and the approval-wait trait immediately after. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers the essential behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify the pending/approval state the agent should expect after calling, but the core semantics are present.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already tells the agent it comes from list_posts. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does all the work.

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 (unpublish) and resource (post) plus the exact state transition: published -> drafts. The phrase 'back to drafts' clearly distinguishes it from delete_post and cancel_scheduled_post, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening the 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?

The description implies when to use it (to take a post offline without deleting), but never explicitly names alternatives like delete_post or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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