unfollow_artists_or_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not state that this is a state-changing operation, that it requires authentication, or how it behaves on errors or rate limits. The verb 'unfollow' implies mutation, but the description does not elaborate.

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 extremely concise, with the primary action front-loaded and no filler text. The parameter list is simple and readable, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly marking required and optional fields.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It leaves the agent unaware of authentication requirements, the need for an access token, and any side effects, making the tool under-specified.

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?

The description adds meaning for ids ('Comma-separated list of artist or user IDs') and follow_type ('artist' or 'user'), which the schema does not provide. However, it omits the access_token parameter entirely and does not clarify its optionality or purpose, so the compensation for the 0% schema coverage is incomplete.

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 action ('Unfollow') applied to a clear resource ('artists or users'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'follow_artists_or_users' beyond the inverse verb, and it omits the platform context (e.g., Spotify), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only gives the action and parameter list, leaving an agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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