Unfollow a post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the call 'changes community state' and requires an explicit confirm flag, which is useful context, but it doesn't explain reversibility or side effects on notifications/feeds.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'for the user-requested action' is slightly redundant with 'requires confirm=true' but does not bloat the definition.

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 simple two-required-parameter mutation with annotations supplying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, state change and the confirm gate. It omits failure modes (e.g. not-followed error) and authorization requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% — post_id, community_member_id, account and confirm are all documented inline, and the description's confirm guidance duplicates the schema wording. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Unfollow a post') that an agent can act on without ambiguity. It does not differentiate from any sibling (no follow/unfollow alternative exists in the sibling list), but the operation is self-evident.

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 implies when the tool applies and adds a gating rule ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action'), but gives no when-not guidance, no mention of preconditions such as prior follow state, and no routing to alternative tools.

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