Unpublish Ghost posts

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses optimistic-concurrency semantics (version-checked), deploy-hook side effects (runs exactly once, only after complete success), and a critical negative guarantee (newsletter email never sent). This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences with the destructive action and its gate front-loaded, followed by side-effect guarantees. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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 not be explained, and the safety profile is fully covered by annotations plus description. What is missing is failure/partial-batch behavior (what happens if one post's version check fails mid-batch) and the batch size ceiling, which matter for a destructive 25-item operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. 'Version-checked' hints that the required updated_at field must match server state, and user_confirmed=true is gated explicitly, but the 24-hex id format and the 1–25 batch limit are never mentioned, so most parameter semantics still rest on regex patterns the agent must decode.

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 (Ghost posts) plus scope qualifiers (exact, version-checked batch). This cleanly separates it from siblings like unpublish_pages, unschedule_posts, and publish_posts without needing to open a 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 gives a hard precondition (user_confirmed=true) that tells the agent when this tool is callable, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it versus unschedule_posts or a future single-post unpublish, leaving that inference to the agent.

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