unsave_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it explains the soft-delete side effect, what's preserved (note history), what's affected (active search/list outputs), and the meaning of remote_confirmed=False as a partial-failure state. It could add idempotency behavior or error handling, preventing a 5, but this is well above the minimum.

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 sentences, front-loaded core purpose, with each subsequent sentence adding meaningful behavior about soft-deletion and the remote_confirmed flag. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. This is textbook conciseness without under-specification.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: remote action, local cache behavior, and a partial-failure state. Since an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, though it could have addressed edge cases like calling on an already-unsaved note or transient network errors.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never explicitly explains the url_or_id parameter format or accepted values. However, the parameter name is largely self-descriptive, and the description's mention of remote_confirmed indirectly hints at the identifier's role in the unbookmark operation. A bit more explicit guidance (URL formats, prefix expectations) would justify a higher score.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Unbookmark a Substack note remotely and soft-delete it in local cache.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling unsave_post by scoping to notes and explicitly describes the dual remote/local action. This matches the 'specific verb+resource+scope' high bar.

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 usage context is clearly implied (use when you want to remove a bookmark from a note), but no explicit when/when-not rules or named alternatives are given. Unlike the calibration example that says 'use search_calls_extensive instead,' this description doesn't guide the agent to an alternative sibling, so it earns a 3 for implied usage without exclusions.

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