avito_unsave_ad

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, openWorld and non-readOnly. Beyond those, the description usefully discloses the return value (Avito's acknowledgement string) and recommends verifying state via the favorites list, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not, however, note whether re-unsaving an already-unsaved listing is a no-op, despite the idempotent hint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoped to the connected account, followed by the verification note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructible tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its effect on the connected account's favorites, the return value, and how to verify state. Annotations carry the safety profile, so only the idempotency nuance is left unaddressed.

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 schema already documents listId as the Avito-returned identifier distinct from adId. The description merely repeats 'via son listId' without adding format or constraint detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 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 gives a specific verb (Retire/removes) plus resource and scope: 'une annonce des favoris du compte connecté', which clearly separates it from siblings like deactivate_ad or get_ad_for_edit. It stops short of naming the counterpart (avito_save_ad) or the alternative list_saved_ads, so it doesn't guide via explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

'Retire explicitement' and the advice to 'consulter les favoris pour vérifier leur état' imply the workflow and how to confirm the result, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus save_ad or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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