unfollow_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('unfollow') but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., is it reversible, does it affect notifications or visibility, are there rate limits, or what permissions are required). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just three words, front-loaded with the action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick parsing by an agent.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like effects, permissions, or error cases, nor does it leverage the output schema to hint at return values. For a tool that modifies user relationships, more context is needed.

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 one parameter 'user_id' with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond implying a user is involved. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description fails to clarify what 'user_id' represents (e.g., Twitter ID, username, or format).

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 user' clearly states the action (unfollow) and target (user), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unfollow_list' or specify what 'unfollow' means in this context (e.g., removing from following list vs. blocking). It's vague about the exact effect.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unfollow_list', 'block_user', or 'mute_user'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be following the user first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.