unsubscribe

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds the important requirement that IDs must match the original subscription, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, or authentication expectations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core instruction (unsubscribe) comes first, followed immediately by the only necessary qualification (matching the original IDs). Every word contributes to the agent's ability to call the tool correctly.

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 unsubscribe operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what to do and how to select parameters. The annotations add safety and idempotence context, and the schema fully enumerates valid event values and ID formats. A brief note about return values or behavior when no subscription exists would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'event' and 'target IDs' (presumably guild_id and channel_id) should be the same values used during a prior subscribe call, which adds useful semantic meaning beyond the raw enum and patterns. However, it does not explicitly map 'target IDs' to the optional parameter names or clarify required/optional roles.

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 states a clear, specific action ('Unsubscribe') and the key context for that action: use the same event and target IDs previously used to subscribe. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'subscribe' tool and other getter tools by linking it directly to the subscription lifecycle.

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 phrase 'using the same event and target IDs used to subscribe' provides actionable usage guidance: this tool is intended to reverse a prior subscription with matching parameters. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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