Remove an Untappd friend

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and open world. The description adds important behavioral context: 'Acts on YOUR account and affects a real relationship with another person' and the caveat about the endpoint not being independently verified. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 concise, with core action stated first, followed by essential behavioral details and a caveat. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, dry-run behavior, parameter semantics, and a reliability note. It could briefly mention that the user must have an existing relationship, but overall it's sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: for confirm, it explains the dry-run vs actual execution; for target_uid, it specifies the source ('from a user profile or friends-list item'). This supplements schema descriptions.

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 uses specific verbs ('Removes', 'cancels') and identifies the resource ('existing friend', 'friend request'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like untappd_add_friend and untappd_accept_friend by focusing on removal/cancellation.

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 explicitly explains the confirm parameter behavior, guiding when to use true vs false (dry-run preview). It does not contrast with alternatives like rejecting a friend request, but the context is clear from the action name.

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