update_library_metadata_by_ids_unmatch

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

Annotations already carry the mutation/idempotency profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare 'Unmatch' action. It does not disclose what gets cleared or changed, whether the operation can be reversed, or any side effects on matched library items.

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 compact: an action sentence, the HTTP endpoint, and an Args note. Every element adds information and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields beyond what is useful.

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 one-parameter operation with an output schema present, the description gives the essential call shape. However, it is contextually thin: it never explains the effect of unmatching or its relationship to match/matches siblings, so an agent is left to infer the domain semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by documenting 'ids: Comma-separated list of IDs'. It does not specify what kind of IDs these are or any constraints, leaving the parameter only minimally explained.

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 clear action ('Unmatch a metadata item') and gives the endpoint, so the agent knows this is the unmatch operation rather than match or matches siblings. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't define what 'unmatch' means in library terms or explicitly contrast with update_library_metadata_by_ids_match.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_library_metadata_by_ids_match or update_library_metadata_by_ids_matches. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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