unfollow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether unfollowing a non-followed user errors out, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions or authentication are needed, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource appear first and the accepted inputs follow. 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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least state idempotency/error behavior and whether auth is required. An agent can call it, but cannot predict edge-case outcomes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the 'resolved to an ID' detail for username. The description adds only the OR relationship between the two parameters, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Unfollow') and resource ('a Hardcover user') plus the two accepted identifiers, which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from read-only siblings. It does not explicitly name follow_user as the inverse, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the name.

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 phrase 'by user_id or username' hints at the either/or input choice, but there is no guidance on when to prefer one identifier, no prerequisites, and no mention of follow_user as the alternative operation. Usage is inferable but not taught.

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