Unpublish board

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent write; the description adds exactly the context they can't: the blast radius (anyone holding the link loses access), the important nuance that editors retain access, reversibility (publish_board restores the same link so former holders can reopen it), and the return signal was_published=false when no link existed. This also explains the playIdempotent=false consequence of a second call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and consequence in the first sentence, then supporting details. The UI-equivalence sentence ('switching off Share, Enable read-only link') is slightly product-specific phrasing but earns its place by grounding the action; otherwise tight with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by documenting the was_published return flag as well as the access impact and reversibility path. For a single-parameter destructive toggle, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 100% and the single board_id parameter is documented in the schema (including that a board URL is acceptable). The description adds nothing about the identifier itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Turn off a board's read-only link') with the user-visible consequence, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling publish_board, which does the inverse. An agent can distinguish this from publish_board and from editor/permission tools like remove_editor without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete anchor for when to use it ('Does what switching off Share, Enable read-only link does') and names the alternative for the opposite operation (publish_board). It does not spell out exclusions, e.g. that this does not revoke editor access or delete the board, but it does state editors keep their access, which implicitly rules out a permissions-revocation interpretation.

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