Unpublish a post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the state transition ('back to draft'), the public-facing consequence ('taking it off the public site'), the relationship to update_post, and the required auth scope. It does not mention potential failure modes or return values, but for a simple idempotent-looking operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and outcome, and every word earns its place. The shorthand reference and scope requirement are valuable additions without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the effect, the scope, and its relation to a sibling tool, giving an agent sufficient context to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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 fully describes the only parameter (id) as 'PocketBase record ID of the post to unpublish,' giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond confirming it's the post whose status changes. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Sets a post's status back to draft') and its effect ('taking it off the public site'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_post by identifying itself as a shorthand for a specific update_post call, making the purpose unmistakable even among similar tools.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as shorthand for update_post({ status: 'draft' }), which tells the agent when to use this tool versus the more general update_post. It also states the required posts:write scope, providing a clear prerequisite. No exclusions are needed for such a simple operation.

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