unsubscribe_from_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation (unsubscribing) but omits side effects such as idempotency, whether it only affects the current user, error conditions if not subscribed, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks critical contextual information: no usage guidance, no behavioral details like idempotency, no expected return value, and no note about authentication or subscription requirements. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 50%: only workspace_id has a description. The description indirectly adds meaning for 'id' by indicating it refers to the issue, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter or its format. Some compensation exists, but it is minimal.

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 'Unsubscribe from an issue's notifications.' clearly states the action (unsubscribe) and resource (issue notifications), and is implicitly differentiated from the sibling tool subscribe_to_issue. However, it does not explicitly specify that it applies to the current user's subscription, leaving a small 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., being subscribed), and no exclusions. It is simply a definition, not usage guidance.

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