unpublish_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the page becomes a draft, nothing is deleted, the URL stops serving immediately, inbound links break, and the legacy endpoint should be verified in the UI.

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 key state change is front-loaded, followed by user-impact warnings, then the technical caveat. Every sentence contributes either to correct invocation, user communication, or post-call verification, with 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 description is nearly complete for a state-changing tool: it gives purpose, side effects, user-safety guidance, and a verification step. It loses a point only because the parameter semantics are not fully covered and the legacy-endpoint note is not expanded into concrete handling.

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 explain page_id, page_type, and user_confirmed. It implies user confirmation ('Say that to the user before asking') but never connects it to the user_confirmed parameter or explains how page_type landing vs site is determined.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Take a live page down') and states the precise outcome ('returns to draft; nothing is deleted'). It also clearly distinguishes unpublish_page from sibling publish/schedule tools by focusing on taking a live page offline.

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?

It gives clear actionable context: warn the user about immediate URL breakage and ask before calling, and check whether a redirect is wanted instead. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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