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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: the permission level ('Overlord only'), the triggering condition (repeated hidden posts), and the concrete effect (the member's key works again). It also clarifies the boundary of what this operation will not affect, which is especially valuable for a mutating tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key restriction ('Overlord only') and the core action, then adds a crucial exclusion. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: who may use it, when to use it, what effect it has, and what it will not do. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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 for the undocumented 'name' parameter. The description implies that 'name' refers to the blocked member, but it does not explicitly state 'the name of the member to unblock' or clarify the expected format. It adds some context but leaves the parameter mapping partially implicit.

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 states a specific verb ('lift a block') and a precise resource scope: only server-created auto-blocks, not operator-set blocks. It clearly distinguishes this tool from related operations like board_lock or board_hide by explaining what it does and what it explicitly does not do.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use this when an Overlord needs to remove a server-created auto-block on a member. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('A block the operator set is not lifted here'), though it does not name a specific alternative tool for operator-set blocks.

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