vk_delete_subscrip_57c818aa195a

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: authentication is required, the operation targets the current user, path/query parameters are top-level fields, camelCase and snake_case aliases are accepted, and no request body is usually needed. It stops short of disclosing response behavior or idempotency, but the disclosed traits go well beyond a bare statement like 'Deletes a subscription'.

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 compact but contains redundancy: 'Unsubscribe the current user from an entity.' and 'Unsubscribes the current user to an entity.' convey the same idea, with the second having a grammatical error. The remaining sentences are useful and front-loaded, but the duplicate sentence prevents a higher score.

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 deletion-style operation, the description covers key operational aspects: endpoint, authentication, parameter mapping, and body expectations. However, it does not explain what the response will be (no output schema exists), and the phrase 'does not usually require a request body' leaves ambiguity. It also doesn't address the fact that schema properties are described as required while the schema itself lists zero required parameters, which could confuse an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters are top-level path/query fields and that both camelCase and snake_case aliases for the same original parameter are accepted, which clarifies the schema's three separate properties for 'entityID', 'entityId', and 'entity_id'. It also notes that no request body is usually required, which informs how parameters should be supplied.

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 clearly states the tool unsubscribes the current user from an entity, and explicitly maps to the DELETE /subscriptions/{entity}/{entityID} endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like vk_delete_projects or vk_delete_tasks, which target different resources. The verb 'unsubscribe' is specific and accurate.

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 the use case (unsubscribing from an entity) and notes that the endpoint does not usually require a request body, which is a helpful usage nuance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., if the user is not subscribed). The 'Raw REST proxy' line gives context but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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