dms_unfavorite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the action verb. It does not state whether removal is reversible, what permission is required, or what happens to the resource, which is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single short phrase with no filler and is inherently front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, since essential context is absent.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits reversibility, permissions, and confirmation behavior, leaving the agent with only the bare action and the schema-supplied parameter.

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 100% and the single resourceId parameter is fully documented in the schema as the file/folder ID to unfavorite. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"즐겨찾기 해제" (remove favorite) conveys a specific action on the favorite state, so the purpose is discernible. However, it largely restates the tool name dms_unfavorite and does not name the target resource type or differentiate itself from the sibling dms_favorite, leaving the agent to infer the details.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative dms_favorite for the inverse operation. Nothing tells the agent when this is the correct tool versus its sibling.

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