발행 취소 (초안으로 되돌리기)

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the post is not deleted (countering destructiveHint), and discloses that RSS/subscription emails are not recalled and search engine caches persist. This addresses potential consequences of the operation.

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?

Two concise sentences, the first states the primary action clearly, the second adds necessary caveats. The use of a star highlights the important side-effect. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains the outcome (draft list), the non-deletion, and external side effects. This fully covers the user's likely concerns.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is described as the ID of the published post. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: reverts a published post to draft. It distinguishes from siblings like publish_post and publish_draft by explicitly targeting the unpublish action. The title also reinforces the 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 doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action is unambiguous: use this when you need to revert a published post to draft. The context of not deleting the post helps set expectations. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is sufficient for selection.

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