unpublish_faq

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

With no annotations, the description only labels the tool as '[mutation]' but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the action is reversible, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 very brief and to the point, with a clear title-like prefix. However, it could include a bit more context without being verbose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what 'unpublish' entails (e.g., visibility change, reversibility). This lack of completeness may lead to misuse.

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?

The single parameter faq_ids is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a moderate score 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 clearly states the action (unpublish), resource (FAQs of Product Q&A plugin), and scope (one or multiple). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_faq or republish_faq, which could lead to confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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