Unpublish Portal

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive state change. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the tool transitions the portal to DRAFT status, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool errors if the portal isn't currently published, or whether the preview URL changes, missing opportunities to add non-annotation context.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. Minimal waste, though it could add a note about dryRun behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations. The description tells the agent the end state (DRAFT) but not about reversal (publish_portal), failure conditions, or the effect of dryRun. For a state-changing operation with idempotentHint=false, the description is adequate but leaves the agent without key operational context like idempotency semantics.

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?

There are only 2 parameters and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for parameter meaning. The dryRun parameter is not self-explanatory from the schema alone, but the description doesn't elaborate on it. However, with only 2 simple params (portalRef being obvious and dryRun being a common boolean pattern), the low complexity reduces the need for extensive explanation. The description could mention dryRun's purpose but doesn't strongly detract.

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 'Take a portal offline (back to DRAFT)' clearly states the verb (take offline), resource (portal), and resulting state (DRAFT). It distinguishes from sibling publish_portal (which goes live) and archive_portal (which implies terminal state), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like archive_portal and delete_portal represent distinct lifecycle states, but the description doesn't explain when unpublish is the right choice versus those alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., must be published first).

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