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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the description's 重复保持未禁言 largely restates structured data. It does add non-annotated behavior: unbanning restores speaking only, not hidden history messages or pinned items, and does not cascade to other sessions or site-wide bans. Useful, but the core safety signal is already in the annotation.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the permission/scope constraint before the side-effect exclusions and the retry rule. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon-delimited style is slightly harder to scan than separate sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: authorization requirement, prerequisite verification call, precise blast radius, idempotent behavior, and the no-retry policy on unknown results.

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 all three parameters (liveId, activityRef, targetUserId) are already documented with bounds and sourcing instructions. The description adds only procedural color (check targetUserId in bans via get_organizer_live), which is guidance rather than new parameter meaning.

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+resource+scope: 解除本场禁言 (lift this session's mute), and explicitly bounds it against what it is not (other sessions, site-wide restrictions). An agent can distinguish it from sibling ban_live_user or any account-level unblock without opening a schema.

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 an explicit precondition (登录/本场主办方), a mandatory pre-check via get_organizer_live against the bans list, and a routing rule for ambiguous outcomes: verify first, do not auto-retry. This is exactly the when/how guidance an agent needs before a destructive-adjacent mutation.

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