unlike_tracks

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and provides a concrete, non-obvious caveat: the endpoint requires Spotify 'Extended Quota Mode' approval and may fail with a permissions error. It does not disclose all behavior details like idempotency or auth scopes, but the disclosed warning is genuinely useful beyond the schema and sibling names.

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 two sentences with no filler: the primary action comes first, and the critical permission caveat follows immediately. Every part earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation and a key failure mode. While additional auth-scope details could be added, the permission warning plus the clear target resource makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to call it.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It only says 'one or more tracks,' adding minimal meaning beyond the already self-evident track_ids array. It does not clarify expected ID format, whether URIs are accepted, or any batch limits.

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 ('Remove') and a precise resource ('tracks from the user's Liked Songs'), making the operation unmistakable. This also clearly separates it from sibling tools like liked_songs and like_tracks, which serve the opposite purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever tracks need to be removed from Liked Songs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools such as remove_tracks for playlist removal. The quota note is about permission risks, not usage routing.

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