ariel_unrepost

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation; 'Remove' is consistent with that. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait — auto-resolving a post URI to the repost record — which goes beyond the schema's mere enumeration of accepted input forms. It does not disclose failure modes or what happens when no repost exists, so the added context is useful but modest.

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?

One sentence, roughly 16 words, with the core action 'Remove a repost' front-loaded and no filler. The behavioral nuance is appended compactly in a parenthetical rather than in a padded second paragraph. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity, destructive tool without an output schema, the essentials are covered: what it does, what input to pass, and how the input is resolved. A documented edge case (e.g., behavior when no repost exists) would justify a 5, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the param's dual input forms ('AT URI of the post to unrepost, or the repost record URI') are already documented — baseline 3. The description restates that and adds only a small operational nuance ('auto-resolves repost record,' 'directly'). This does not rise meaningfully above the baseline.

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 a specific action-resource pair, 'Remove a repost,' which identifies exactly what the tool does. This clearly separates it from ariel_repost (its inverse) and ariel_delete_post (which deletes a user-authored post rather than a repost record), even without naming siblings. The input detail further pins the scope: post URI or repost record URI.

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 use case is implied — undoing a prior repost — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives such as ariel_delete_post or ariel_repost. The note that a post URI auto-resolves the repost record is operationally useful for invocation, but the agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name and sibling context rather than from stated conditions.

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