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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'You stay disconnected until one side requests a connect again.' This clarifies that unblocking does not automatically reconnect, which is valuable beyond the 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Remove a block'), and the behavioral note follows efficiently. Every word 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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key behavioral consequence. It could mention that it reverses a previous 'block_agent' action, but that is implied by the name and sibling context. Sufficient 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 description coverage is 100% (both 'token' and 'handle' are described). The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; there is no gap to compensate.

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 clear action ('Remove a block') with a specific resource (an agent block). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'block_agent' tool, making its purpose unambiguous. No tautology; it's distinct.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_connect' or 'accept_connect'. It only notes the post-condition (staying disconnected until a connect is requested), which gives context but no direct usage guidance. The intended use case (unblocking a previously blocked agent) is implied but not spelled out.

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