Unpublish post

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing concrete consequences — the post leaves the site, archive and app, its link stops working, comments and stats are retained on the draft, already-sent emails stay in inboxes, and re-unpublishing errors out. That is precisely the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence supplies a distinct, decision-relevant fact (visibility effects, data retention, email caveat, reversal path, error condition). No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, side effects, reversibility, retained data and failure mode, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 is a single required parameter, post_id, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself pointing at list_posts as the source. The description adds no further semantics about the identifier, which is the expected baseline when the schema already carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+result: 'Take a published post off the web and back to drafts,' then immediately reinforces it with 'Turns a published post back into a draft.' An agent can distinguish this from publish_post, delete_post, cancel_scheduled_post and update_draft without opening any 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?

It states the reverse operation explicitly ('Publish it again with publish_post') and gives a hard precondition ('A post that is not published returns an error'), which effectively excludes drafts and scheduled posts. It never explicitly contrasts with delete_post for permanent removal or cancel_scheduled_post, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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