unstock_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('remove bookmark from') but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens to the item after unstocking, or if the action is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. The parenthetical clarification ('remove bookmark from') adds helpful context without verbosity. Every word earns its place in this well-structured description.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks important context about authentication requirements, error conditions, return values, or relationship to similar tools. The simplicity of the tool partially compensates for these gaps.

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 a single parameter 'item_id' clearly documented. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline is high. No additional parameter semantics are needed for this simple case.

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 action ('unstock/remove bookmark from') and resource ('an item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'stock_item' by indicating the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_item'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'unstock' implies removing a bookmark/storage relationship rather than deleting the item itself (unlike 'delete_item'), this distinction isn't explicitly stated. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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