unsubscribe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the quota cost and the need for confirmation, but the confirmation requirement is already present in the input schema. Beyond the cost, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or reversibility. This adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single sentence with three clear clauses: purpose, cost, and confirmation requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words 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 unsubscribe tool with fully described parameters, the description provides the essential context: purpose, quota cost, and the confirmation gate. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but these are less critical given the schema's completeness. Overall, it is nearly complete for this straightforward operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely repeats the confirm requirement. The subscriptionId parameter is well-described in the schema, so the description's contribution is minimal.

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 clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'Unsubscribe from a channel.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list-subscriptions'. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to unsubscribe) and includes critical usage constraints: 'Costs 50 quota units' and 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which prevents a 5, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple tool.

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