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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read, open-world write, but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that no state changes until a separate signing and submission step occurs. Naming the exact companion tools (geode-local-signer, geode_submit_intent) tells the agent how the multi-step flow completes, which annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded and the intent/sign/submit workflow follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the signer semantics, and the deferred-commitment workflow. It lacks any statement about preconditions (e.g. the account must currently be blocked) or post-submission behavior, which are minor omissions given the schema carries the field detail.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the role of `signer` ('prepared for this account') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Unblock an account') and immediately frames it as a chain write that produces an unsigned intent. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling geode_social_unblock_account, so an agent must rely on the tool name/prefix to pick the messaging variant.

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?

Gives clear procedural context: prepare the intent, then sign with geode-local-signer and submit with geode_submit_intent, so the agent knows nothing is committed on its own. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over geode_social_unblock_account or its inverse geode_messaging_block_account, so alternatives are implied rather than stated.

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