unsubscribe

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a state-mutating tool, yet says nothing about idempotency, auth requirements, whether it errors on a non-subscription, or what the response looks like. Only the bare intent is conveyed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is somewhat under-specified rather than padded, but structure-wise nothing is wasted.

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 an annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description should cover success/failure semantics and subscription state implications. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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?

The single parameter `pr` is fully documented in the schema (GitHub PR URL or OWNER/REPO#NUMBER), so the 100% coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema.

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?

"Stop watching a pull request" is a specific verb plus resource, and reads clearly as the inverse of the sibling `subscribe`. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus `subscribe` or `subscriptions`, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens when the user isn't subscribed. The agent must guess at the operational context.

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