peck_unfriend_tx

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the transaction construction (MAP type=unfriend), the indexer effect (removes the (friender, bap_id) row), and that broadcasting is signed by MCP's keychain-resident agent identity. This gives substantial behavioral insight, though it omits failure modes or idempotency.

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?

Three terse sentences, purpose-first, with no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, internal behavior, and signing context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return-value information (e.g., broadcast result or transaction hash) and does not explain the agent_app parameter. It does cover core behavior and signing, but the missing output contract and one undocumented parameter keep it from being fully complete.

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 67%, above the 50% threshold, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meanings beyond the schema: target_bap_id is already described as 'the bapID you previously friended,' and agent_account is covered in the schema. The undocumented agent_app parameter receives no clarification in the description.

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 action ('Undo a previous friend tx') and explains the mechanism (builds MAP type=unfriend tx, parser removes the row). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like peck_friend_tx or peck_unfollow_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 clearly defines when to use it: to undo a previous friend transaction. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use peck_unfollow_tx to undo a follow', so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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