nexus_untrack_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it specifies the rate-limit pool used ('Consumes the v2 GraphQL pool, NOT the v1 REST rate-limit quota') and explicitly describes the return payload ('JSON {untrackUser: {success}} or an error string'). No contradiction with the 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?

Three short, dense sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the action statement, the rate-limit caveat, and the return format. No filler or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations, a 100% covered schema, an output schema signal, and a return format stated in the description, nothing essential is missing. The rate-limit behavior and output shape are both covered, making the definition complete for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter user_id is already well documented in the schema with its type, minimum, and purpose ('Nexus Mods member ID to stop tracking'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Stop tracking a user via v2 GraphQL' — a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexus_track_user (opposite action) and nexus_untrack_mod (different resource). The title 'Untrack a user (v2)' reinforces the purpose.

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 provides a clear context note that this tool consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than the v1 REST rate-limit quota, which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexus_track_user or nexus_ignore_user, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or alternative tool routing.

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