unlove_track

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds value by specifying that authentication is required and clarifying the exact object being mutated. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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: one sentence for the action, one for the prerequisite, and a minimal Args block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restating of schema constraints.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and an existing authentication flow among siblings, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter meaning completely. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 0% and the schema only gives string types. The description compensates by defining 'artist' as 'Artist name' and 'track' as 'Track name', which gives an agent enough semantic meaning to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and names the exact resource ('track from your loved tracks'). This clearly distinguishes it from its sibling love_track and goes beyond restating the tool name.

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 clearly states the prerequisite 'Needs authentication' and, by saying 'Remove ... from your loved tracks,' makes the intended context obvious. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use alternatives, but the contrast with love_track is self-evident.

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