feed_unsubscribe

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

The description goes well beyond annotations. It discloses that deduplication history is removed, memory entries are not deleted, and re-subscription may re-ingest previously seen items. Annotations only cover idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints, so the description provides crucial side-effect context.

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 and well-structured. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a clear explanation of side effects and necessary input. No redundant sentences; every line adds value.

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 one-parameter subscription removal, the description fully covers how to call it (feed_list reference), what effect it has (dedup history removal), what it does not do (memory deletion), and future implications (re-subscription). With an output schema present, nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100% because feed_id already has 'ID from feed_list()' in the schema. The description repeats this hint but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action: 'Unsubscribe from a feed and stop future polling.' This is a specific verb (unsubscribe) and resource (feed), and it is distinct from siblings like feed_subscribe and feed_list. No tautology.

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 gives a clear prerequisite (use feed_list() to find the feed_id) and implies the operation is the antonym of feed_subscribe, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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