unfollow_voice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It signals that the action is a mutation ('unfollow'), but does not state side effects, reversibility, prerequisite conditions beyond a prior follow, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing tool.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler; it communicates the action and the key prerequisite compactly. The structure is front-loaded and easy for an agent 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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented input schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Still, because there are no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from stating what an unfollow does (e.g., removes the relationship) and any failure conditions, so completeness is average.

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 description coverage is 100%, with 'token' and 'voice_id' already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('unfollow') and resource ('a voice'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It inherently distinguishes this from the sibling 'follow_voice' by describing the reverse operation.

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 phrase 'you previously followed' implies the tool should only be used for voices currently in the user's following set, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage largely implied.

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