unsave_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and requires confirm=true. It stops short of stating that removal is reversible (tracks can be re-saved), what happens on an unresolvable name, or any auth scope requirements, so the disclosure is valuable but partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the destructive warning and gate. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 essentials: what is removed, that it is destructive, and that confirm is required. Minor gaps remain around confirm's default value and error behavior on unresolved track names.

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 well documented in the schema (names, URIs, or URLs, auto-resolved), while confirm has no schema description. The description compensates for confirm by stating confirm=true is needed, but does not give a default, accepted false behavior, or any detail beyond the schema's own items description.

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 and resource: "Remove songs from Liked Songs." The phrase "Liked Songs" and "songs" cleanly separates it from unsave_albums, though it does not name that sibling explicitly. Clear enough for an agent to select it without opening the schema.

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 supplies one real usage condition — confirm=true is required — but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like playlist_remove or unsave_albums, and no note on what happens if confirm is omitted. Usage is implied by the purpose statement rather than explained.

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