unpublish_content

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

With annotations covering the safety profile (destructiveHint true, readOnlyHint false), the description still adds rich context: the URL answering 404, content-area reference dropping, the content.unpublished webhook firing, retention of content and version history, and the required content.publish permission. This is exactly the behavior-beyond-annotations an agent needs.

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-loads the core action and effect, then layers webhook, reversibility, routing, return shape, and permissions. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly blocky as a single paragraph rather than cleanly separated.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool with no output schema: it describes the return shape (get_content shape, unpublished in that locale) and the permission requirement, while annotations already handle the safety hints. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value: it explains that the locale names the 'branch' and that omitting it targets the item's own language, and that other locales remain unaffected.

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 (unpublish) and resource (content item) with scope (one locale), and clarifies the observable effects (404, dropped references). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings publish_content and trash_content by naming both.

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 explicit routing: 'To remove the item entirely use trash_content' for the destructive alternative, and notes publish_content as the reversing action. The locale-omission rule (omit for the item's own language) is stated as an operating condition, not left to inference.

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