abx_unrelease_action_version

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's only additional content is the raw DELETE endpoint, which merely repeats the title. It says nothing about the consequence of unreleasing — whether existing deployments or subscriptions referencing the version break, whether runs fail, or that re-releasing via abx_release_action_version is the way back.

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?

Three lines, two of which are redundant paraphrases of the first, and the third is a raw endpoint string duplicating the annotation title. The text is short but wasted space, and no consequence or guidance 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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description should describe the resulting state change and any downstream effects. It currently supplies only a restated purpose and the HTTP route, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both id and projectId documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it does not explain the path {id} versus the projectId scoping rule beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A verb+resource is present ("mark an action version as not released"), so the general intent is graspable. But the three lines restate the same thing and never clarify the unit of operation: the schema only accepts an action id, not a version id, leaving it ambiguous whether this unreleases one version, the current version, or all of them. It also doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings such as abx_release_action_version, abx_restore_action_version, and abx_delete_action_version.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling release/restore/delete version tools, and no prerequisites or warnings. An agent must guess whether "unrelease" is a soft rollback, a deprecation, or a prerequisite for deletion.

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