unfollow_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Unfollow a user' implies a mutation operation (removing a follow relationship), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens if the user isn't being followed, if it's reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

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 three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error conditions, return values, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'follow_user'. For a tool that modifies user relationships, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'user_id' documented as 'User ID to unfollow'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the work, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 user' clearly states the action (unfollow) and target (user), but it's vague about what 'unfollow' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unfollow_tag' or clarify if this is a social connection removal versus some other type of unfollowing. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be following the user first), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'remove_group_member' or 'unfollow_tag'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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