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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (Following feed, recommendation source) and, importantly, what is preserved ('Board jobs remain'). The user-confirmation requirement is a behavioral obligation not encoded in the annotations or schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequences, then the confirmation rule, then the alternative. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and every sentence changes agent behavior.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is removed, what survives, that confirmation is mandatory, and which sibling covers the softer action. No remaining informational gap affects correct invocation.

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 description says nothing about either parameter. The schema's follow_id description already carries the essential disambiguation ('Follow ID from following.list, not company.id'), and confirmed is a const-true gate that is largely self-explanatory, so the schema does the heavy lifting at 50% coverage. No added meaning in the description, but no real gap either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Unfollow a company') and immediately names the concrete side effects: removal of the Following feed and the recommendation source. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming following.pause as the non-destructive alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Confirm with the user first') and an explicit alternative for the adjacent intent ('To pause temporarily instead, use following.pause'). An agent can decide between unfollow, pause, and resume without opening another schema.

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