Unsubscribe from a feed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by detailing the two-step token mechanism and what is lost (articles, read state, stars). It also notes that re-subscribing starts fresh, adding valuable behavioral context.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding essential information: what is deleted, the two-step process, and irreversibility. No fluff, front-loaded with core action.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior, prerequisites, and consequences. For a destructive two-step operation with good annotations, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value over the schema for parameters. However, it clarifies that feed_id comes from list_feeds and confirm_token is from the first call, which is helpful but not essential given the schema 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 uses specific verbs ('Deletes') and resources ('feed', 'stored articles, read state and stars'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe_feed or update_feed. The purpose is uniquely defined.

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 explains the two-step process (first call for token, second call for deletion) and warns about irreversibility, guiding the agent on correct invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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