delete_users_by_id_follow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the endpoint and the 'me' special value for the id parameter, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether it removes the user from followers/following lists, or whether it's reversible, or auth requirements. With annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile, a 3 is fair.

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 short and front-loaded with the action ('Unfollow this user') followed by the endpoint and parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for including the raw endpoint line which is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but it's useful for clarity.

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 destructive action with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is mostly complete. It explains the parameter and the action. However, it doesn't mention the response format (though output schema exists), nor any error conditions (e.g., not following the user), nor authentication requirements. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 must compensate. It does explain the id parameter: 'The slug that identifies the user, or "me" for the authenticated user.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Id' string. It's concise and covers the only parameter, so it's adequate.

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: 'Unfollow this user' with the endpoint DELETE /users/{id}/follow. It distinguishes from the sibling create_users_by_id_follow (the inverse operation) by naming the action explicitly. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage: it's for unfollowing a user, and the sibling create_users_by_id_follow is the follow counterpart. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor mention prerequisites like authentication or that the user must be currently followed. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit guidance is given.

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