unpublish_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates the core action and authorization; it does not explain what unpublishing does to the book's visibility, whether it is reversible, or what other side effects occur.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key authorization note is compactly parenthesized. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it leaves the behavioral effect of unpublishing, the meaning of slug, and the expected response unresolved. An agent can identify the target action but would still be guessing at important operational details.

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 provides only the slug's type and requiredness, with zero parameter descriptions. The description does not explicitly say the slug identifies the book or describe its format, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning from context.

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 names the action ('Unpublish') and the resource ('a book'), and adds an authorization constraint ('primary author only'). It does not explicitly contrast with lifecycle siblings like retire_book or close_book, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical supplies a useful usage restriction: only the primary author may unpublish. However, no guidance is given about when to choose unpublish_book versus related lifecycle tools such as publish_book, retire_book, or close_book.

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