npm_unpublish_package

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context beyond that: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE, the name is blocked for 72 hours, and cannot be re-published. This goes beyond the structured metadata and gives the agent essential behavioral consequences.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by the key warning, then the alternative, and finally the confirmation requirement. Every sentence carries essential information with no waste.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its scope, the irreversibility and 72-hour block, the alternative for single versions, and the confirm requirement. There is no output schema, but for an unpublish operation, return values are less critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond emphasizing 'Requires confirm: true', which is already encoded in the schema as const. It does not compensate with additional details, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 unpublishes an ENTIRE package (all versions), which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool npm_unpublish_version by explicitly mentioning 'all versions' and directing single-version unpublishes elsewhere.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'For single-version unpublish prefer npm_unpublish_version.' This names the alternative and clarifies when to use this tool vs. another. The warning about irreversibility and the 72-hour block also informs decision-making.

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