unfavorite_contributor_network_item

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It discloses idempotency, mutation nature (clearing a flag), required scope, and the need to refetch for updated count. This is comprehensive for a simple 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 extremely concise with two sentences. First sentence states action and idempotency; second sentence adds scope and a usage note. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, idempotency, scope, and post-action behavior. It does not explain error conditions or output schema, but the output schema is available separately. Slightly incomplete on edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'item_id'. The description does not provide additional detail about the parameter beyond the tool name and schema type. However, the parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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 action: 'Clear the caller's favorite flag for an item' and notes idempotency. It distinguishes from sibling 'favorite_contributor_network_item' by implying the opposite action.

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 mentions required scope ('contributor-network.write') and advises to refetch after use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the sibling tool for the opposite action, though the sibling name provides context.

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