feedbin_unstar_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this mutates Feedbin state and enforces a 1000-id cap, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not state auth requirements, whether non-starred ids cause errors, idempotency, or return behavior, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The mutation warning and batch limit each add distinct value, and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a safety-adjacent limit. It remains incomplete regarding error behavior, response shape, and idempotency, which an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter domain as entry ids and adds a batch-size limit (1000), which is meaningful beyond the raw schema. It still does not clarify array semantics, invalid-id handling, or required ordering, so compensation is partial.

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 ('Unstar entry ids'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling feedbin_star_entries. It does not explicitly name the sibling or define scope beyond the operation, but the purpose is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus feedbin_star_entries or other entry-state tools, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The operation is implied by the name and description, but the agent is left to infer usage context.

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