unfollow_feed

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

The description includes a '[write]' prefix indicating a mutation, but no annotations exist. It fails to disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or return behavior. Without annotations, the description should provide more behavioral 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must be authenticated, feed must be followed) or what happens after removal.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, with 'feed_id' described as 'Numeric feed id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation at high coverage.

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 'Remove a feed from the user's follow list' with a specific verb and resource. It directly contrasts with the sibling tool 'follow_feed', which adds a feed, making intent unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'follow_feed' or other sibling tools. The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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