unfollow_playlist

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

With only destructiveHint=true in the annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses a confirmation prompt ('Always asks before writing') and the environment variable that suppresses it (SPOTIFY_MCP_CONFIRM=never). This is meaningful beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about reversibility or whether the removal is recoverable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action and scope first, followed by one short clause on the confirmation behavior. No filler, nothing an agent must wade through.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive mutation the description covers the important safety behavior (confirmation gate) and the endpoint, though it omits reversibility, which would fully round out a destructive operation.

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 playlist_id, dry_run, and response_format are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Unfollow a playlist') and immediately clarifies the effect ('remove it from your Spotify library'), which distinguishes it from the sibling remove_from_playlist that removes tracks. Naming the underlying endpoint (DELETE /me/library) removes any residual ambiguity about scope.

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?

It conveys the operation but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g. it never points to follow_playlist or check_playlist_following for the reverse or verification cases. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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