unsubscribe

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

Goes well past destructiveHint=true by saying exactly what is destroyed (the alert's delivery on those channels and their record of matches) and what survives (the saved search remains as a bookmarked search). That distinction between deleting delivery and deleting the search is the single most important behavioral fact here and is stated plainly.

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?

Three short sentences: action and scope first, consequence and retention second, alternative third. No filler and nothing important is buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover nearly everything: scope, destruction, retention, and the alternative. Minor gap: nothing about error behavior or whether repeating the call is idempotent when the alert is already gone.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning: it frames id as identifying "one" alert and channel as the choice between all channels and a single one, reinforcing the omit-for-all semantics in prose. Enum values themselves are left to the schema, which is fine.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Stop one job alert by its id") and scopes it precisely ("on every channel or on the one named"). It is clearly distinguishable from subscribe, list_subscriptions and update_subscription, whose names appear in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: to hold an alert temporarily, use update_subscription instead of unsubscribing. That is a genuine when-not-to-use directive with a named sibling, not an implied one.

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