taiga_wiki_unwatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, 'Stop watching a wiki page' only restates the tool's name and does not reveal any side effects, consequences, or details about what 'unwatch' entails (e.g., removing the current user from the watchers list, not deleting the page, or requiring authentication). The description adds no information beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the operation. It clearly identifies the resource and action, making it reasonably complete even though it does not elaborate on the expected result or edge cases. The simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more detail.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Wiki page ID' (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 'Stop watching a wiki page' uses a clear verb ('Stop watching') and specific resource ('wiki page'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taiga_wiki_watch, taiga_wiki_watchers, and other resource-specific unwatch tools.

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 implies its usage context (use when you want to stop watching a wiki page) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as taiga_wiki_watch or taiga_wiki_watchers. It lacks a 'when to use' or 'when not to use' explanation, making it merely implied rather than explicit.

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