superset_dashboard_unpublish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the post-condition: the dashboard remains accessible to owners/admins but is hidden from the general list. This is meaningful context beyond the simple 'unpublish' action, though it doesn't cover permissions or side effects like whether embedded views are affected.

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 plus a single-arg line, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place; the Args section is slightly redundant but acceptable for such a short description.

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 an output schema, the description explains the operational effect (convert to draft, hidden from general list) and the exception for owners/admins. It omits prerequisites like 'the dashboard must be currently published,' but this is implied by the action and the sibling tool superset_dashboard_publish. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description repeats 'dashboard_id: Dashboard ID' with no additional semantics. The single integer parameter is self-explanatory from its name alone, so the description adds little value beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, but it's not misleading.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Unpublish a dashboard (convert to draft).' It distinguishes from siblings like superset_dashboard_publish and superset_dashboard_delete by explaining the resulting state (hidden from general list, but accessible to owners/admins).

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 description implies when to use this tool: when a dashboard should be hidden from the general list but remain accessible to owners/admins. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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