waitlist.unsubscribeUse an opaque unsubscribe token from an Elron marketing email to stop every waitlist marketing update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context that the action applies to 'every' waitlist marketing update, which clarifies the scope of the destructive action. No contradictions with annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the token source, action, and scope without any fluff. Every word adds value.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the prereq (token source), the scope (every update), and the action. Annotations handle safety and idempotency, and the output schema covers return values.
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 coverage for the token parameter is 0%, but the description explains its meaning and provenance: an opaque token from an Elron marketing email. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description, though more detail on token format is not provided.
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: using an opaque unsubscribe token to stop every waitlist marketing update. It distinguishes itself from waitlist.subscribe by focusing on unsubscribing, and the title reinforces the purpose.
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 gives clear context on when to use: when you have an opaque unsubscribe token from an Elron marketing email. It implies the opposite of waitlist.subscribe but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a distinct action within its domain (applications, viewings, rentals, etc.). Verbs like start, update, submit, create, propose, accept are unambiguous and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent domain_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., applications.start, rentals.search, viewings.propose_availability). No mixing of styles.
21 tools cover a broad rental lifecycle (discovery, applications, quotes, viewings, payments, contracts). While slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot, each tool has a defined purpose and no redundancy.
The lifecycle from rental search to booking confirmation and contract signing is well-covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation or withdrawal tools), but the core flows are complete.