Unsubscribe a user

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds critical context: the need for operator write opt-in, the confirm:true requirement, and potential side effects like notifying recipients or changing tenant data. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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 front-loaded with the action and endpoint. It includes a reference link and essential caveats in a single paragraph. While it could be formatted more cleanly with bullet points, it contains no filler and efficiently conveys the key information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the operation, required path parameters, confirmation requirement, and side effects. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not address error handling or return behavior.

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 description coverage is 67% (query and confirm have descriptions, path does not). The tool description mentions the endpoint with {subscriptionId} and {personId}, which clarifies the path parameters, and states 'Body fields: none'. However, it does not elaborate on the query parameter's purpose or pagination beyond what the schema already states, so it only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 ('Unsubscribe a user') and provides the exact HTTP DELETE endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the resource and operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_subscribers or get_subscribers, and the inclusion of the API reference link adds further specificity.

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 implies when to use it (to remove a subscriber from a subscription) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It does mention prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true) which is helpful, but lacks explicit routing to other tools.

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