unfollow_profile

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: this is a two-step draft/approve workflow rather than an immediate unfollow. It still doesn't say what artifact is created or whether the draft is queued.

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 with zero filler; the required follow-up action is front-loaded and impossible to miss. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical routing fact (approval is mandatory) and the return value is documented by the output schema. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameter contract, which is minor relative to the schema and annotations provided.

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 0% for two required parameters. The description hints that the profile must be an exact match and that only one profile is targeted, but it never explains the 'account' parameter or the expected profile format (handle vs. URL), leaving half the input contract undocumented.

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+resource (unfollow one exact X profile) and implies a prepare/staging action rather than an immediate execution. It is distinguishable from the sibling follow_profile, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 clear procedural guidance: the action must be followed by approve_draft, naming the exact sibling required to complete it. It lacks a when-not clause or comparison to alternatives (e.g., follow_profile), but the required follow-up step is unambiguous.

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