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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds concrete value by specifying that the operation returns 'ok' even if the user was not following the creator. It also notes the login requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 compact sentence that communicates login requirements, the operation, and a key idempotence guarantee with no filler. Every part earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It covers authentication, core action, and edge-case behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 is 100% and the sole parameter userId is already well-described in the schema as the target user's cuid. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('取消关注' / unfollow) and a specific resource ('主理人' / creator), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like follow_creator and unfollow_product without any ambiguity.

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 explicitly notes that login is required, which is a concrete usage precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent to unfollow a creator is clear enough that an agent can determine when to invoke it versus follow_creator or block_user.

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