unpublish_locale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of describing behavioral traits. It says nothing about side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens to published translations when a locale is unpublished, making it behaviorally opaque.

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 short but under-specified to the point of being a tautology. It is not a model of conciseness because it sacrifices all informative content for brevity.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what unpublishing a locale entails, what resources are affected, or how the agent can verify success, offering no operational context beyond the tool name.

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 documents the only parameter with a clear description ('Locale code to unpublish'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Unpublish a locale' directly restates the tool name with no additional context. It does not explain what unpublishing means, what a locale is in this context, or how it differs from sibling tools like publish_locale beyond the verb itself.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or how unpublishing relates to other locale/translation operations.

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