x_api_unfollow_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses mutating/high-risk behavior, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, expected response shape, and a safety warning. This is far more comprehensive than typical tool descriptions.

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 (Use when, Risk, Permissions, etc.), making it easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat long, but every section provides useful context. The 'Use when' section is redundant, but overall the structure earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers expected response shape, prerequisites, failure conditions, environment selection, and provides a concrete example. The main gaps are incomplete semantics for some parameters and lack of detailed follow/unfollow edge cases, but this is still a very strong description for a complex tool.

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 partially does: it explains that scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId selects the tenant principal, and that credentialKey selects a non-default profile. It also lists source_user_id and target_user_id as path parameters. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained, and the 'unknown' type for required parameters is vague.

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 clearly states 'Unfollow User' as a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like x_api_follow_user or x_api_unmute_user, relying primarily on the tool name for distinction. The 'Use when: Unfollow User' line is a tautology that adds no new meaning.

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 description provides an explicit 'Do not use when' clause, advising against exploration and preferring x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. However, the 'Use when' is simply 'Unfollow User'—a tautology—and there is no explicit comparison to alternative follow/unfollow or mute tools. The guidance is present but not deeply informative.

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