Remove Mutual Friend Connection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it spells out the immediate consequences (revoked direct messaging and contacts-only profile access for both accounts) and the identity prerequisite. It stops short of describing what the response contains or whether the peer is notified, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler: effect first, precondition second, sibling differentiation last. Every sentence carries distinct information and the ordering is front-loaded with what the tool actually does.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation, the definition supplies the precondition, the immediate side effects, and the disambiguation from both adjacent tools, while an output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety traits.

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% and the single accountId parameter is already well documented in the schema, including its source (socialwtf_list_connections). The description adds only the constraint that the accountId must be an existing mutual connection, which is a marginal increment over the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (unfriend an existing mutually connected account) and immediately scopes it against the two nearest siblings, socialwtf_reject_connection and socialwtf_block_user. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not conditions: reject_connection is for declining a pending inbound request and block_user also blocks future contact requests, whereas this ends an active friendship only. It also names the precondition (a registered local identity) that gates invocation.

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