unpublish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Revoke public access' without any mention of side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the resource is not currently published. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement and a brief Args section. Every sentence is useful, and the example for the path parameter is front-loaded. There is no redundant information or fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, it lacks any usage context or behavioral caveats (e.g., prerequisites like 'only works on currently published resources'). Given the simplicity, this is a minimally viable description but not complete enough to guide an agent in all situations.

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 only provides the parameter name 'path' with a title, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining 'path' as 'Path on Yandex Disk' and providing a concrete example ('/Documents/presentation.pdf'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about the path referring to the resource being unpublished.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke public access to a file or folder.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'publish' (the opposite action) and 'get_public_resource' (reading public access). There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when a file should be unpublished, whether it should only be used on previously published resources, or any alternative tools (e.g., 'publish' for opposite action). It leaves the decision entirely to the agent without context.

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