peck_unfollow_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool builds and broadcasts a signed MAP transaction and that the signer is MCP's keychain-resident agent identity, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not detail failure modes or confirmations, but the core mutation and signing behavior are explicit.

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?

All three sentences carry distinct information: the operation, the tx construction, the matching rule, and the broadcast/signing behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter transaction tool with no output schema, the description captures the prerequisite, matching semantics, and signing identity. It stops short of describing expected return values or error conditions, but nothing essential to invoking the tool 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?

The description enriches target_paymail beyond the schema by explaining that the indexer matches on the paymail field and that the caller must reuse the identifier from the follow. The schema already covers agent_account well, but agent_app remains undocumented in both text and schema, preventing a top score.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Stop following a previously followed paymail/handle.' It identifies the output artifact as a 'MAP unfollow tx,' which distinguishes it from sibling relation tools like peck_follow_tx and peck_unfriend_tx.

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 establishes when the tool applies ('previously followed') and the key requirement to 'Pass the same identifier you used when following.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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