update_unscrobble

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

Annotations already carry the behavioral profile (mutating, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds only the endpoint and operation semantics. It does not disclose side effects or prerequisites, but given the annotation coverage this is acceptable. Minor copy-paste wording ('to rate', 'to scrobble') slightly muddies the behavior but does not contradict 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 one-line summary followed by endpoint and compact arg docs is efficient. The arg descriptions contain unnecessary repetition of rate/scrobble phrasing, but no sentence is extraneous.

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 three-optional-parameter mutation with annotations covering idempotency and safety, plus an output schema, the description covers the endpoint and all parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to update_scrobble.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all three parameters. It adds valuable meaning: identifier's typical value, key's relationship to ratingKey, and uri's concrete format templates.

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 verb and resource in 'Mark an item as unplayed' and reinforces it with the endpoint 'PUT /:/unscrobble'. It is readily distinguishable from the sibling update_scrobble by function, though it never names that tool explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_scrobble or update_rate. The endpoint and arg docs imply usage but provide no conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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