tokportal_unpublish_bundle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description does not contradict annotations. However, it adds no extra behavioral context—such as whether this deletes the bundle or just hides it, whether it's reversible, what happens to associated data (videos, accounts), or if there are any side effects on published content. With annotations carrying the destructive flag, the description's minimal contribution keeps this at a 3.

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 sentence of three words. It is maximally concise, but the over-brevity sacrifices useful context. It is front-loaded but lacks detail that would improve usability. A 4 reflects that it is efficient but borderline under-specified.

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 is a destructive mutation with no output schema, two parameters, and rich sibling context. The description provides no information about return values, confirmation of success, error states, or the scope of the unpublish action (e.g., does it affect all users or just the publisher?). Given the tool's potential impact, more context is warranted.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for the 'id' and 'idempotency_key' parameters. Following the scoring guidance, high coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not degrade or improve it.

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 the tool 'unpublishes a bundle', which matches the name and title. It clearly describes the verb (unpublish) and resource (bundle). Sibling tools include 'tokportal_publish_bundle' and 'tokportal_update_bundle', so the action is distinct. A small gap is not explaining any side effects (e.g., if previously published content becomes hidden), but the core purpose is clear.

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 this tool versus siblings like tokportal_publish_bundle or tokportal_update_bundle. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., bundle must be published, must own the bundle), consequences, or when not to use it. Given the rich sibling set, the lack of usage guidance drops the score.

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