Unpublish a game

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing important behavioral consequences: the game becomes draft-only, visibility is restricted to the owner and admins, the operation is reversible, and votes/comments are preserved. This gives the agent a solid mental model of the operation's effects.

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 compact and information-dense. Three short sentences cover the action, the resulting state, visibility, reversibility, and preservation of related data, with no filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the state change, who can see the result, how to reverse it, and what data is preserved. Nothing essential is missing 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?

The single parameter 'game' is fully documented in the schema with format guidance (slug or id), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 clearly states the action ('Takes a live game offline and back to draft') and the resource ('a game'). It also differentiates the tool from publish_game by explaining the state change and visibility consequences. This is a specific, easily understood purpose.

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 establishes a clear use case: unpublishing a live game. It mentions reversibility with publish_game but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delist_game or delete_game, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over those alternatives.

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