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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds 'Overlord only' (permission requirement) and 'for good' (permanence), which are useful behavioral details not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the most critical info ('Overlord only' and 'release a domain'). No wasted words; every sentence adds 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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, permission, scope, and exclusions. It doesn't mention potential errors or side effects beyond the permanent release, but 'for good' implies irreversibility. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal context: the domain is the one that appears in posts ('posts naming it'). However, it doesn't explain format, validation, or edge cases. The single 'domain' parameter is self-explanatory, but the description could have added more value.

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 (release a domain), the specific resource (domain auto-blocked from spam hides), and the effect (posts naming it go through again). It also distinguishes from operator-blocked domains, which differentiates it from siblings like board_unblock or board_unhide.

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?

It provides clear context: only for domains auto-blocked from spam, and explicitly excludes operator-blocked domains. It implies a different tool exists for operator-blocked domains, though it doesn't name one. The 'Overlord only' permission also guides usage.

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