freshrss_unstar_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unstar articles' names the action but does not disclose side effects, idempotence, required authentication, permissions, or what happens to already-unstarred articles. It is minimally transparent but not informative about behavior beyond the operation itself.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is beneficial, but it is also under-specified for a tool that operates on a parameterized list of articles. It is not overly verbose, but the terseness leaves little useful guidance.

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 existence of freshrss_star_article and other article-manipulation siblings, and the absence of annotations, the description should at least note the inverse relationship and any operational context. An output schema exists, but the description still omits usage context and behavioral clarification, making it only partially 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?

The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the single required parameter is named article_ids and the schema property already describes it as 'List of article IDs.' The tool name also makes the role of the parameter obvious, so the lack of description-level parameter semantics is a minor gap rather than a severe one.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Unstar articles.' It inherently contrasts with the sibling freshrss_star_article, and the operation is obvious from the name and description. It lacks additional precision about what counts as an article, but it is not vague or tautological.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as freshrss_star_article or freshrss_mark_read. The sibling list implies a contrast, but the description itself provides no contextual or conditional usage direction.

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