Снять публикацию

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

The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it discloses irreversibility, reset of version history, loss of likes and install counters, persistence of already installed copies, and that the flow itself is not removed. This is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 adding distinct value: the core action and destructive scope, the irreversibility and version reset, then the non-affected elements. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the destructive nature and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential decision-making information: what is lost, what cannot be undone, what remains, and what is untouched. An agent can predict the operation's effects without needing external context.

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 parameters already documented. The description reinforces that 'flow' refers to the marketplace-published scenario but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specific verb and resource: removing a publication from the marketplace. It goes beyond a tautology by specifying what is removed — history, likes, install counter — and clearly differentiates the action from siblings like market_publish and market_release.

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 clearly implies use when you need to permanently remove a marketplace publication, and it explains the consequences. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as market_release or market_update, nor does it state when not to use it.

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