unsubscribe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral constraint—only the mailto List-Unsubscribe method is supported—which is useful. However, it does not state side effects (permanently removing the subscription), failure behavior when no appropriate header exists, or permission requirements.

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 one terse sentence that front-loads the core mechanism and the key limitation (mailto-only) before giving the parameter format. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the method constraint, and the parameter format. It is slightly incomplete because it omits failure behavior (e.g., when no List-Unsubscribe header exists) and usage guidance, but the overall complexity is low.

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 provides zero description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying the required email_id format ('folder:uid' with the example 'INBOX:1'). This is directly actionable for the agent, though it does not define what 'folder' refers to beyond the example.

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 ('退订' / unsubscribe) and a specific resource: the email identified by email_id, using the List-Unsubscribe header. It clearly communicates the mechanism and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from a similar sibling tool, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., the message must have a mailto List-Unsubscribe header). The agent must infer usage from the name and terse description.

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