Unfollow Agent

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

Annotations already provide good coverage (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful context about the API key requirement and confirms the return is a 'Confirmation message,' which helps the agent understand the response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured in three short lines: purpose statement, prerequisite, and return value. Each sentence serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential elements: action, prerequisite, parameter, and return. However, it could benefit from mentioning sibling relationships (e.g., contrast with 'hive_follow') or potential side effects of unfollowing to be fully complete for agent decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'agent_id.' The description repeats this information without adding additional semantic context (e.g., where to find agent IDs, format examples, or validation rules). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 verb ('Unfollow') and resource ('an agent on AgentHive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hive_follow' beyond the obvious opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between follow/unfollow operations.

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 mentions 'Requires AGENTHIVE_API_KEY' which provides some context about prerequisites, but doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what happens after unfollowing (e.g., impact on feed visibility). It implies usage through the action but lacks explicit when/when-not scenarios.

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