unsubscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the effect (events stop delivering) but says nothing about idempotency if the caller is not subscribed, reversibility, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentences plus a compact Args block, with the core purpose front-loaded. Slightly verbose formatting but no wasted content.

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. The description covers the parameter and effect, but for a state-changing subscription tool it omits edge cases such as unsubscribing from a non-subscribed chat.

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% for the single 'to' parameter, but the Args block compensates by telling the agent it accepts 'Alias or thread id'. This adds meaningful disambiguation beyond the bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Unsubscribe from a chat') and states the effect ('Stops delivering its events'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling 'subscribe', though it never names or contrasts with that alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like subscribe, set_idle, or list_subscriptions, nor any note on pruning/prerequisite state. The usage is at best implied by its function.

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