supportpages_unpublish_article

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the article is not destroyed outright but retained as a draft, it needs an account plus publish permission (not a repository), and the latest revision should be used. That is genuine behavioral value over the structured hints.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core effect (remove from public, keep as draft) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a single-action tool, though somewhat telegraphic.

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 no explanation. For a destructive mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies auth requirements, the drafting side effect, and revision guidance; the unexplained workspace parameter is the only notable gap.

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 schema does not explain any of the three parameters. The description only partially compensates, hinting at expected_revision ('Use the latest revision') while leaving article_id and workspace entirely uninterpreted.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Remove an article from the public help centre') and adds the key outcome ('retaining it as a draft'), which distinguishes it from a hard delete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like supportpages_delete_article or supportpages_publish_article, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives prerequisites ('Requires an account and publish permission, not a repository') but does not state when to choose this over alternatives such as delete_article or publish_article. Usage is implied by the draft-retention behavior, not spelled out.

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