Unfollow Spotify Playlist

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it 'verify[ies] that it is no longer saved' after removal. It also discloses the platform limitation that permanent deletion is not exposed, giving the agent a clearer mental model of the operation's postconditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and verification step, followed by a relevant caveat. No extraneous words or redundancy. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core action, the verification step, and an important platform constraint. It does not explain return values (likely covered by the output schema) or explicitly contrast with similar removal tools, which is a minor gap but not critical given the simplicity of the 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 input schema defines playlist_id as a required string with minLength 1, but provides no descriptive text. The description adds the qualifier 'exact', implying the ID must precisely match rather than be a name or partial string. This is some added meaning, but with a single simple parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description could have provided more detail about the expected format or source of the ID.

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 function with a specific verb ('Remove'), identifies the target resource ('an exact playlist ID'), and scopes it to 'the current user's library'. It also reinforces that this is an unfollow operation rather than permanent deletion, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_library_remove or spotify_playlist_remove.

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 clear context: use this tool when you want to remove a specific playlist from the user's saved libraries. It also notes that Spotify does not expose permanent playlist deletion, implying this is the appropriate alternative. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full guidance.

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