unpublish_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome ('taking it offline') but does not mention whether the action is reversible, what happens to tickets currently on sale, whether attendees are notified, or what state changes occur beyond going offline.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is so terse that it omits important behavioral and usage context that a mutation tool definition should carry.

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?

Although this is a simple one-parameter tool and an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context for a state-changing action: reversibility, effect on published/live status, and relationship to publish_event and cancel_event. The definition is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions event_id or its meaning beyond the implicit 'a live event'. The only inferred requirement is that the event must be live; there is no clarification of ID format, validation, or relationship to the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unpublish') with a resource ('a live event') and states the observable outcome ('taking it offline'). This clearly differentiates it from delete_event or cancel_event in the sibling list, though it relies somewhat on the tool name for the exact action.

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 guidance on when to use unpublish_event versus publish_event, cancel_event, or update_event. The phrase 'a live event' implies it should only be used on currently live events, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are given.

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