unfollow_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unfollow a tag' implies a mutation operation that changes a relationship state, but it doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether this is reversible, what happens to associated data, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it maximally efficient in terms of word economy while still communicating the basic operation.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'unfollowing' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or what permissions might be required. For a tool that presumably changes system state, more contextual information is needed for effective agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'tag_id' clearly documented as 'The tag ID to unfollow'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately high. The description implies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 'Unfollow a tag' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it clearly indicates the action (unfollow) and target (tag), it doesn't provide any additional specificity about what 'unfollowing' means in this context or how it differs from similar operations like 'delete_tagging' or 'unfollow_user' among the sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that might be related (follow_tag, unfollow_user, delete_tagging, list_user_following_tags), but the description offers no context about when this specific unfollow operation is appropriate versus other tag or user relationship management tools.

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