juggle_unfavorite_sitter

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the change is private to the calling user, that it is reversible via juggle_favorite_sitter, and it spells out the full two-phase confirmation behavior (preview + confirmToken, or an elicitation prompt where supported, per MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true; the description supplies the mutation semantics they lack.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the identity linkage, then the confirmation contract — a sensible order with no filler. The prompt-injection sentence is dense and slightly tangled, but each part carries distinct operational meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the important return behavior (phase-1 returns a preview plus confirmToken) and the failure mode agents most often mishandle (repeating with a token without user approval). It does not describe the shape of a successful unfavorite response, a minor gap for a simple mutation.

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%, so the schema already defines both fields and the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: it names the source of sitter_account_id (accountId from juggle_list_favorites) and describes when confirmToken must and must not be passed, which the schema only states in isolation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a sitter from your Juggle favorites") and immediately ties the argument to a sibling: "sitter_account_id = accountId from juggle_list_favorites". An agent can tell this apart from juggle_favorite_sitter without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the inverse alternative explicitly ("juggle_favorite_sitter undoes it") and a strong when-not rule around injected instructions in tool results. The conditions are framed almost entirely around the confirmation/safety flow rather than ordinary workflow boundaries, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives matrix.

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