Unsubscribe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces idempotency with 'Not being subscribed is fine' and adds genuinely new operational context: a quota cost of 51 units. It does not state auth/scope requirements or what happens to subscription history, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences plus a quota line, with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every element carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are schema-documented; the quota note rounds out the picture. What remains missing is authorization scope requirements and confirmation of what state changes on the channel, which for a destructive operation would be worth stating.

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 100%, so 'channel' and 'my_channel' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting nuance beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Unsubscribe') and resource ('the authorized user from a channel'), which is unambiguous and inherently distinguished from the sibling 'subscribe'. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or scoping the effect, but an agent cannot confuse it with anything else in the list.

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 single-purpose nature makes usage obvious, and 'Not being subscribed is fine' signals it is safe to call even when unnecessary. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over managing subscriptions another way, nor prerequisites such as required scopes.

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