bsky_unfollow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication is required, which is useful, but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the purpose and authentication requirement. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but misses key details like parameter semantics and behavioral context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the parameters 'follow_uri' or 'acting_handle', leaving their meaning, format, or usage undocumented. This fails to address the coverage gap, resulting in a low score.

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') in Japanese, which translates to 'unfollow' in English, clearly indicating it removes a follow relationship. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bsky_follow' (opposite action) and 'bsky_block' (different relationship type). However, it doesn't specify the resource beyond 'follow', making it slightly less precise than 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?

The description mentions authentication is required ('要認証'), providing some context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bsky_unblock' or 'bsky_unmute', nor when not to use it. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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