unpublish_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a valuable nuance—unpublishing does not delete copies already stored by RSS subscribers—but it omits other useful behaviors such as side effects on feeds, reversibility, idempotency, or permissions.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded and the clarifying non-deletion note directly follows, making the description easy to process.

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?

The tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. Still, the description does not provide enough contextual guidance for an agent choosing among the publisher sibling tools, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 lacks parameter descriptions and the tool description does not compensate. It refers to 'an entry' but does not clarify what entry_id must refer to, what format is expected, or any constraints beyond the property name. For a single required parameter this is a modest but real gap.

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 names a specific action ('Stop emitting an entry') and a clear resource, and it adds a meaningful constraint: existing RSS subscriber copies are not deleted. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like retract_entry, so the agent must infer where unpublish fits.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use unpublish_entry versus retract_entry, republish_entry, or publish_batch. The RSS-copies note hints at the intended context, but the agent is not told under what conditions this tool should be selected over alternatives.

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