Unfollow an account

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

在已有注释（idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false等）的基础上，描述额外说明了内部机制（从viewer state查找记录），这增加了对调用行为的具体理解。没有矛盾之处，且提供了超越注释的细节。

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?

两句话结构紧凑，第二句解释了为何只需一个参数，有价值。第一句与标题略有重复，但整体没有冗余词汇，长度恰当。

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?

对于这个简单操作，结合注释和schema，描述足以让代理正确调用。虽然没有提及返回结果（因为无输出schema），但操作本身是单向的，不影响调用。唯一可补充的是account参数的默认行为，但schema已覆盖。

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对两个参数（actor和account）的说明覆盖率100%，描述中'所以只需要handle'与actor参数对应，但并未在schema之外增加新的参数含义或格式细节。按规则，schema覆盖高时基线为3。

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?

描述以具体动词'Stop following'开头，明确操作对象是'an account'，与兄弟工具如follow、mute等形成清晰区别。虽然没有显式命名替代工具，但动作本身无歧义。

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?

描述解释了它通过viewer state找到自己的follow记录，因此只需提供handle，这隐含了使用场景——当你有handle时即可调用，无需额外ID。但未明确说明与其他工具（如unfollow与unmute）的选择条件，不过从语境上足够清晰。

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