unpublish_blog_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it states the post returns to draft, nothing is deleted, and external artifacts (search engine indexes, feed-reader copies) persist after the page is removed. This gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects and non-destructiveness, going well beyond a generic 'unpublish' statement.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second states the post-action state and non-deletion, and the third explains external persistence. The main action is front-loaded and there is no 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?

The tool description covers behavior and side effects well, and an output schema exists so return values need no description. However, it omits guidance on the optional user_confirmed parameter, which is essential for correct invocation in cases where an agent must ask for confirmation. This is a meaningful gap in an otherwise solid definition.

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 needed to compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention post_id and, more importantly, does not explain the optional user_confirmed flag or when it should be set. The parameter names in the schema are self-explanatory only for post_id; user_confirmed remains ambiguous, so the description adds no real parameter semantics.

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 phrase ('Take a live blog post down') and names the exact resource (live blog post). It distinguishes from sibling tools like unpublish_page or unpublish_marketing_email by specifying 'blog post', and clarifies the state change ('returns to draft; nothing is deleted') so it cannot be confused with a delete/destroy operation.

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 clearly: when you want a live blog post to become a draft while preserving its content as a draft. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer unpublish_page, schedule_blog_post_publish, or reset_blog_post_draft. Since context is clear but no alternatives are given, this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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