instagram_unlike_media

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read/non-destructive mutation, which the description aligns with by stating 'Remove'. The description adds the requirement for INSTAGRAM_ALLOW_WRITES=true and the return structure (unliked bool and media reference), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose idempotency behavior, error cases, or rate limits, which would be valuable for a write operation. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action, an environment prerequisite, and a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not deeply shown but noted) and the description includes return values. It also specifies the environment variable requirement. For a simple mutation with a single parameter, the description covers the essential usage context. Minor omissions like error handling or idempotency confirmation are not critical given annotations already declare idempotentHint=true.

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 schema description for the media parameter is comprehensive ('Post URL, shortcode or media id.') and the description repeats exactly this text, adding no new meaning. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline for this dimension is 3. There is no additional elaboration on formats, validation rules, or typical usage examples.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('the logged-in account's like from a post'), immediately distinguishing this from its sibling like_media and other read-only tools. The phrase 'logged-in account' clarifies scope unambiguously.

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 states a prerequisite (INSTAGRAM_ALLOW_WRITES=true) which is useful, but it does not explicitly mention the inverse relationship with like_media or provide any when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied by the tool name and the sibling list. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the obvious counterpart.

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