chaprola_unpublish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool removes public access but does not mention whether the program remains accessible to owners, if the action is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutation operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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 sentence with no superfluous words, front-loading the action and object. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is sparse. It fails to clarify that unpublishing is distinct from deleting or whether the program remains available in a private state. For a mutation tool, this lack of context makes it incomplete.

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 input schema covers both parameters (name and project) with full descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'remove' targeting 'public access from a published program', clearly distinguishing it from related tools like chaprola_publish and chaprola_delete_record. It precisely identifies the resource and the action.

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 the tool is for programs that are currently published, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as delete_record or publish. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the usage context only partially implied.

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