unpublish_kit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the kit remains in draft and can be re-published, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond the state change.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence (12 words) with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action and consequence.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, behavioral outcome, and state transition. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., kit must be published) but is otherwise complete.

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 input schema already describes kit_id as 'Kit UUID' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints about the parameter, thus meeting the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Unpublish' and the resource 'kit', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tool publish_kit by explaining the opposite effect (taking offline) and notes that the kit can be re-published later.

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 context (taking a kit offline) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like publish_kit or delete_block.

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