unpublish-status-page

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds behavioral context by stating the specific outcome: removing public/internal access. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful beyond-annotation detail about what gets affected.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earned its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete by clarifying the state after unpublishing (e.g., page remains but inaccessible) or mentioning reversibility (it can be republished). Lacks these details.

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% for the single parameter 'pageId'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action 'Unpublish', the resource 'status page', and the effect 'to remove public/internal access'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'publish-status-page' (opposite) and 'delete-status-page' (permanent deletion).

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 usage (when you want to remove access), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., 'delete-status-page' for permanent deletion) or prerequisites (page must be published). It does not mention when not to use.

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