Retrage de pe site

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the element is moved back to draft, disappears from the public site, and remains stored. This is useful beyond the structured annotations, though it does not detail what happens to URLs or existing versions.

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 compact sentence that leads with the core action and then clarifies the key consequences. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with fully described schema fields and informative annotations, the description is almost sufficient. It explains the operation's effect and non-destructive nature. The main missing contextual detail is an explicit statement about preconditions, such as the element needing to be live or published before retraction.

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 detailed descriptions for both required parameters ('tip' and 'slug'). The description adds no extra parameter-level information, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a 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 states a clear state transition: 'Trece elementul înapoi în ciornă' (moves the element back to draft), and then clarifies the consequences: it disappears from the site but remains saved. This unambiguously differentiates the tool from 'sterge' (delete) and 'publica' (publish) without relying on the tool name alone.

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 implies the use case: unpublish or retract an item while preserving it in the system. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over 'sterge', 'restaureaza', or 'publica', and it does not state prerequisites such as the item needing to be currently published.

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