Unfavorite asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that the removal is a mutation of persistent state, whether it is reversible, or that confirm must be explicitly set. With zero annotation contradiction but no added context, a 2 is appropriate.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no padding. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a seven-parameter destructive tool, so not a 5.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with seven parameters, a nested union body, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains that at least one identifier or payload must be supplied, how the body input modes are mutually exclusive, or what confirm guards against.

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%, so all seven parameters (including the nested payload union and payload_file exclusivity rules) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the two identifier options, adding no syntax or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (unfavorite) and resource (asset) plus the two identifier forms it accepts. It is clearly separable from favorite_asset, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical unfavorite_asset_collection and unfavorite_asset_character siblings.

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 names accepted identifiers but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between the three unfavorite variants or between request_id and vector_id. The only actionable instruction (confirm=true) lives in the schema, not here.

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