unpublish_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a state change but does not mention whether it is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on app accessibility. Given it is a mutation tool, this gap is significant.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core action.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., app must exist and be published), reversibility, and side effects, making it only partially complete.

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 schema has a single 'name' parameter with 0% coverage, and the description does not add any information about it. While it is reasonably inferable that 'name' refers to the app name, the description fails to explicitly state this or provide format/validation context.

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 'Put an app back behind the login' clearly communicates that this tool reverts an app to a private, login-protected state. The verb 'put back' combined with the resource 'app' distinguishes it from siblings like publish_app, delete_app, and update_app.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The word 'back' implies the app was previously published, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose this over publish_app or delete_app.

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