x_api_unfollow_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states 'Risk: mutating, high-risk' and includes a 'Safety warnings' section saying 'This mutates X state.' It also discloses required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, and common failure conditions (auth failures, rate limits, missing credentials), which provides substantial behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, etc.), making it scannable. It is somewhat verbose but most sections earn their place. There is minor redundancy: 'Unfollow List.' appears as the first line and again under 'Use when: Unfollow List.' which is a tautology, but overall it remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutating 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers a lot: purpose, exclusions, risk, permissions, environment behavior, response shape, failure modes, and a safety warning. However, it falls short on explaining the critical id/list_id parameters and provides an incomplete example that omits the required list_id. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'id (path, unknown, required); list_id (path, unknown, required)' but adds no meaning for these fields—'unknown' is unhelpful and the description never explains that id is the user ID and list_id is the list ID. It does explain scope-related parameters in the environment-selection section, but the core id/list_id semantics remain ambiguous. The example omits the required list_id parameter.

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 'Unfollow List.' which identifies the action (unfollow) and resource (list) with a specific verb. It is clear enough, though terse, and the name itself is self-explanatory against sibling tools like x_api_follow_list. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'unfollow' entails (e.g., removing the authenticated user from the list's followers).

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 'Use when: Unfollow List.' is a tautology that adds no guidance. However, the description provides a 'Do not use when' clause directing agents to x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration and to auth/configuration tools when needed. It also lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools, giving some workflow context, but it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative list tools like x_api_follow_list.

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