unsave_itemRemove one pick from Saved picks. Idempotent. Never changes the list or the pick.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item id from saved_items. | |
| unresolved | No | Set true only to remove a source_unknown save, without sourceListId. | |
| sourceListId | No | The exact source list id from saved_items. Required unless unresolved is true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / sourceListIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The exact source list id from saved_items. Required unless unresolved is true.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / unresolvedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Set true only to remove a source_unknown save, without sourceListId.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful blast-radius context: "Never changes the list or the pick." It does not cover auth needs or error behavior, but it meaningfully clarifies that only the saved association is 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two constraints that matter most. There is no unnecessary wording.
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 unsave operation with rich schema descriptions and annotations, the definition supplies the essential purpose and side-effect scope. It leaves only minor details—such as return behavior or edge cases—unstated, which are reasonable omissions here.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Remove one pick from Saved picks," making the action much clearer than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as remove_item or restore_item, so it falls short of a 5.
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 scope "from Saved picks" implies when to use the tool, but the description gives no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the nearest alternative, remove_item. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.
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.