mhlb_unsubscribe_order

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

The description is exceptionally transparent about the write's unverified nature ('UNVERIFIED — its request shape was derived... has not been exercised against a live account') and advises a safe workflow via the dry-run preview. This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and provides critical risk context. No contradiction with annotations; in fact, it reinforces the openWorldHint.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The action is stated first, followed by a vital safety warning. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a destructive write operation, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the unverified risk, and the preview mechanism. The schema handles parameter details and there is no output schema to explain. It lacks an explicit note on when to prefer this over mhlb_delete_order, but given the schema's mention of default values, the context is largely complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, every parameter already has a clear description in the schema, including the confirm behavior and the isSubscribed default distinction. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the action ('Stop a recurring subscription') and the resource ('a specific lunch order'), making its intent obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mhlb_delete_order, although the schema's description of the isSubscribed parameter hints at the distinction. The core purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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 includes a crucial usage instruction: 'Inspect the dry-run preview before confirming,' which guides the agent to verify before executing. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like mhlb_delete_order or mhlb_set_subscription_enabled. It implies the tool is for recurring subscriptions but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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