Unpublish a page

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false-ish behavior for reads, and destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context by stating the page is not deleted and the shareable URL is preserved, which tells the agent the operation is state-toggling and link-stable. It doesn't cover permission requirements or the already-unpublished case, but the added side-effect detail exceeds what annotations convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; both clauses (offline, non-destructive, URL stable) carry information and the core action leads the sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its two most important non-effects. Minor gaps remain around required permissions and behavior when the page is already unpublished, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

One parameter (pageId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone gives no guidance. The description refers to 'a page' but adds no format, ID source, or scope detail beyond the parameter name; low-coverage schemas normally demand compensation the description does not supply.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Take a page offline' names the exact operation on a page. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by negating deletion ('without deleting it') and from update_page by noting the shareable URL is untouched, though it never names publish_page/delete_page directly.

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?

The negation clauses (not deleting, URL unchanged) imply the intended scenario — temporarily removing content from public view while preserving links — but no explicit when-to-use trigger or named alternative (delete_page, update_page) is given. Usage must be inferred from the contrast with deletion.

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