Unfollow Playlist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine value by specifying what gets destroyed: for an owned playlist, the playlist itself is permanently deleted. This non-obvious consequence goes beyond the generic destructive flag and matches the annotations with no contradiction.

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 sentences plus a one-line args note, with the core action and effect front-loaded before the deletion nuance. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second captures the critical gotcha, and the args line documents the only input. No 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 tool with one required parameter, a full annotation profile (destructive, idempotent), and an output schema present, the description covers the only non-obvious trap an agent would face: owned playlists are deleted via unfollow. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate — and it does by documenting 'playlist_id: Playlist ID or URI.' The schema only says 'string' with title 'Playlist Id,' so the added 'or URI' format guidance is real semantic value beyond the structured data. For a single-parameter tool this is sufficient, though no provenance guidance for obtaining the ID is given.

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 a specific verb+resource pairing — 'Unfollow a playlist, removing it from the user's library' — and adds the key distinction that for owned playlists this is how Spotify deletes them. This clearly differentiates it from track-level siblings like remove_tracks_from_playlist or remove_saved_tracks, so an agent won't confuse removing content from a playlist with removing the playlist itself.

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 statement 'For playlists the user owns this is how Spotify deletes them — there is no separate delete endpoint' is an explicit usage rule that tells an agent to reach for this tool even when the user's intent is deletion. It provides clear context but stops short of naming sibling alternatives or giving explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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