devto_unpublish_article

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

The description goes beyond the bare action by disclosing the key behavioral consequence: the article becomes a draft rather than being deleted. It also adds an important safety detail that no article can be destroyed through this endpoint. Since no annotations are provided, this extra disclosure carries meaningful weight.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Take a published article down') and then immediately provides the most important behavioral nuance. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what action is performed and what the result is. It does not discuss ownership requirements or failure behavior, but given the simplicity of the operation, the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has one simple 'id' integer parameter, and the description does not explicitly map it to the article ID. The tool name and description strongly imply that id is the published article's ID, so it is minimally adequate, but the description does not add direct parameter-level clarification beyond what the schema already shows. With 0% schema description coverage, a bit more explicit parameter guidance would have been better.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Take a published article down.' It clearly distinguishes this from deletion by stating the article becomes a draft again, which also separates it from sibling tools like publish_article and update_article. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when a published article should be made a draft. It also provides an implicit exclusion by noting there is no delete-article endpoint, so this tool is not a deletion mechanism. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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