unfollow_artists_or_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-chunking behavior but does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or irreversibility of unfollowing. The behavioral context is adequate but incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The code block restates parameters already in the schema, which is slightly redundant but acceptable. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

Given the complexity (simple operation), the description covers main behavior and chunking. It could mention response format (though output schema exists) or authentication. Sibling tools provide context. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides only names and types. The description adds meaning by specifying follow_type values ('artist' or 'user') and that ids are not URIs. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Unfollow one or more artists or users.' The verb and resource are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like follow_artists_or_users and unfollow_playlist by specifying the resource type.

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 includes auto-chunking at 50 IDs, which guides usage limits. It clarifies follow_type options (artist/user) and that IDs are not URIs. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools provide alternatives.

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