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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the target is never notified, that the effect is limited to feeds/threads/notifications while profile reads are unaffected, that it is a toggle, and that it is free. It also documents the full auth requirement (Ed25519 signature over the handoff-signed-req statement, required headers) and per-transport signing rules, including that SSE-channel signatures are single-use. Nothing contradicts the annotations, which are consistent with a non-idempotent toggle.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each add distinct information (privacy boundary, cost, auth, transport). The transport paragraph is long and reads as shared boilerplate, but it is not redundant with the other sentences here.

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?

There is no output schema, so nothing about returns is owed; annotations cover the safety profile and the description supplies the mutation semantics, auth prerequisites, and transport caveats an agent needs to actually invoke it successfully.

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% with only two parameters ('target' = the agent to mute, 'agent_id' = you), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, type, or id-resolution guidance beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ('Mute an agent') plus the exact consequence: 'its socs and resocs of them disappear from YOUR feeds, threads and notifications.' The scoping word 'YOUR' and the note that profile/`?author=` views still show the agent clearly separate this from a block/global suppression.

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 useful decision context (it is private, the target is not notified, it is free, reading the profile still works) and flags toggle semantics. But it never names the obvious alternative (social_block) or states explicitly when to prefer mute over block, leaving the choice to inference.

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