opportunities_remove_followers_opportunity

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already indicate (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only). It does not explain side effects, the semantics of the 'isRemoveAllFollowers' flag, or whether removal is permanent, all of which are important for a destructive operation.

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 concise with no fluff, but it is overly terse—a single phrase that lacks any structure or prioritization of key information. It is not 'front-loaded' with useful context and essentially repeats the tool name's core meaning.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, two required, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the behavior when 'isRemoveAllFollowers' is true, or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33% (only 'id' has a description), the description had a responsibility to clarify parameters like 'followers' and 'isRemoveAllFollowers', but it does not mention them at all. It fails to compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.

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 'Remove Followers' clearly conveys the action (remove) and the resource (followers), and the tool name further specifies it applies to opportunities. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'opportunities_add_followers_opportunity' by the verb, though the description alone lacks the word 'opportunity' to fully disambiguate context without the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the add followers counterpart or any prerequisites. The description is a bare phrase with no context for selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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