unfollow_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unfollow a list' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to list visibility or access, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is completely inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, every word earns its place by stating the essential operation. No structural issues exist given its brevity.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'unfollowing' entails operationally, doesn't cover prerequisites or side effects, and relies entirely on the output schema for return values. For a tool that modifies state, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'a list' which hints at the 'list_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to obtain it, or what constitutes a valid list. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Unfollow a list' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('unfollow') and resource ('a list'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'unfollow_user' or explain what 'unfollowing' means in this context. While it indicates the basic action, it lacks specificity about what happens when you unfollow a list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., you must be following the list first), doesn't explain the relationship to 'follow_list', and doesn't clarify what 'unfollowing' a list means compared to other list operations like 'delete_list' or 'remove_list_member'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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