grove_unflag

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the description's mention of clearing a flag (a modification). The description adds the permission requirement (grove_write) but does not describe potential side effects, error conditions, or return behavior, so transparency is limited.

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 brief and focused, with no unnecessary detail. It uses two clear sentences, effectively conveying purpose, permission, and key parameters without fluff.

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 the simplicity of the operation and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, permission, and key parameters. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., flag not present) or relationship to grove_flag, but for a straightforward unflag action it is sufficiently 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?

The description explains three of the four parameters (message_id, flag, sender), adds meaning for sender (default and permission), and clarifies the roles of the others. It omits app_id entirely, which reduces coverage but the description still adds value beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the action (clear a flag) and the target (a message), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like grove_flag (which sets a flag) and grove_flagged (which lists flagged messages). It also mentions the permission requirement, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (to remove a flag from a message) and notes permission requirements. However, it does not explicitly point to alternatives (e.g., grove_flag for setting a flag) or state when not to use it, which would make it fully explicit.

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