Unfavorite asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement of what is removed, whether it is reversible, whether confirm is needed, or how retries behave despite an Idempotency_Key parameter existing.

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 with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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, non-idempotent mutation with 7 parameters, a nested payload object, four overlapping body-input paths (flat flags, payload, payload_file) and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the mutually exclusive body forms, the confirm gate, or idempotency behavior.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description echoes the two ID parameters but adds no syntax, precedence rule for request_id vs vector_id, or interaction with the nested payload.

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 and resource (unfavorite an asset) plus the two acceptable identifiers (request ID or vector ID), which pins the target precisely. It differentiates implicitly from unfavorite_asset_collection and unfavorite_asset_character by saying 'asset', though it never names them or its inverse favorite_asset.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative favorite_asset or the collection/character variants. It also omits the fact that the mutation requires confirm=true, which is only discoverable by reading the schema.

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