Unsubscribe Topic

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying the blast radius — only the caller's notification setting changes, the topic and posts are untouched. It does not disclose the return value or what happens when called while not subscribed (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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, then scope, then the reversal path. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter toggle with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: the action, the personal-only scope, non-destructiveness, and the inverse tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both course_id and topic_id are already documented in-schema, including where to obtain them (list_courses, list_topics). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a precise verb+resource pair ('Stop getting notifications ... in a discussion topic') and immediately delimits scope ('Only affects you'), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools that mutate topic content such as edit_my_entry or delete_my_entry.

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?

Explicitly names the inverse action ('Reverse with subscribe_topic'), giving the agent a clear routing rule for the opposite intent. It does not state preconditions (e.g., must already be subscribed, must be enrolled), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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