Unpublish (archive): no more auto-enrolment; in-flight users silently degrade to the plain agent on their next turn (progress kept — re-publishing resumes it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storyline_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: no more auto-enrolment, in-flight users degrade silently, progress is kept, and re-publishing resumes it. This is rich behavioral transparency covering reversibility and user impact.
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 dense, information-packed sentence with no filler. Every element—auto-enrolment, in-flight user degradation, progress retention, re-publishing—earns its place. Efficiently structured with a parenthetical for archive.
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?
Given the simple tool (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, side effects, data safety, and reversibility. It is complete for its scope without needing to explain return values.
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 single parameter storyline_id is straightforward and its meaning is implied by the tool name, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly define storyline_id or its format, so while the parameter is obvious, the description does not compensate for the missing schema detail.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Unpublish (archive)' with specific consequences ('no more auto-enrolment', 'in-flight users silently degrade to the plain agent'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool publish_storyline and other storyline operations.
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 usage scenarios (e.g., when you need to stop auto-enrolment) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like publish_storyline or provide exclusions. It lacks direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it is adequate but not explicit.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.