unfollow_artists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is DESTRUCTIVE, it is gated behind confirm=true, and it requires the follow scope. It omits what is actually removed (unfollow vs. remove from library) and any return/confirmation behavior.

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 short fragments with the destructive warning front-loaded; every clause earns its place. Slightly terse phrasing ('needs confirm=true (needs follow scope)') costs it polish but not clarity.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety and auth facts an agent needs. The main remaining gap is the meaning/resolution behavior of 'items'.

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 coverage is 50%: 'items' is documented in the schema while 'confirm' is not. The description compensates for 'confirm' by explaining it must be true and why, but says nothing about 'items' (and the schema's 'track names' wording for an artist tool is unaddressed).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Unfollow artists'), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'follow_artists' by polarity. It does not explicitly name the sibling or scope beyond that, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: confirm=true must be supplied and the follow scope is required, which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over other library-mutating siblings.

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