unfollow_artists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auth requirement (user-follow-modify), the bulk range (1–50), and that dry_run previews without calling the API. It does not mention irreversibility or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are present.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action, constraints, auth requirement, and preview usage are all delivered efficiently and front-loaded.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers required permission, ID limits, and a preview mode. It could go slightly further by noting reversibility or response shape, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already explains ids, dry_run, and response_format. The description adds marginal value by restating the ID count range and preview behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Unfollow artists') with a clear scope (1–50 IDs), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like follow_artists and get_followed_artists without needing to name them.

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 clear operational context: it states the required auth scope and recommends dry_run=true for previewing. It does not explicitly enumerate when to use an alternative tool, but the tool's purpose is so specific that the usage context is clear enough.

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