nexus_remove_favourite_game

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the rate-limit pool behavior and the concrete return shape ('JSON {removeFavouriteGame: {success}} or an error string'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses three short, information-dense sentences covering what, rate-limit behavior, and return format. No wasted words or redundant restatements.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive action with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, API pool, and response shape, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the game_id property already includes 'Game ID to remove from favourites.' The description does not add further parameter details, but it doesn't need to since the schema fully documents the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a game from your favourites via v2 GraphQL.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_add_favourite_game and nexus_get_favourite_games. The title 'Unfavourite a game (v2)' reinforces clarity.

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 gives practical usage context by stating it consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST rate-limit quota, which helps an agent decide between API versions. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the purpose statement implicitly routes away from add/get favourites tools.

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