wallabag_unstar_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes the mutation direction clear and, being the inverse of star, implies reasonable reversibility, but says nothing about idempotency, error behavior on unstarred entries, or required permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity state-toggle tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema that covers return values, the description is nearly complete. Only edge-case behavior (non-starred entries) is unaddressed.

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 100% for the single entry_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and state change ('Remove starred/favourite state') on a named resource ('wallabag entry'). It is easily distinguished from the obviously inverse sibling wallabag_star_entry, though it never names that sibling 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 versus wallabag_star_entry, nor on what happens if the entry is already unstarred. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the symmetric sibling.

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