twitter_unfollow_user

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by specifying that the action applies to the authenticated account and requires write capability, which is important behavioral information.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and target, then adds the key auth requirement. There is no fluff, repetition, or wasted wording.

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 write operation, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage provide enough context for selection and invocation. It lacks explicit return or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, so this is not a major gap.

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 all five parameters are already documented with their own descriptions. The tool description only restates that user_id is numeric, adding no meaningful semantic value beyond the structured 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 names a specific action ('Unfollow a user') and resource ('by numeric user_id'), and clarifies it operates on the authenticated account. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings such as twitter_follow_user or read-only user info tools.

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 clear context: this unfollow acts AS the authenticated account and requires write capability behind the key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the auth and capability framing gives enough guidance for tool selection.

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