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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but they cannot express the preview-then-confirm gating. The description adds the crucial fact that the first invocation is non-committal and only the token-bearing repeat mutates state, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the destructive scope leads, the confirmation protocol follows. Every clause carries load and the ordering matches the agent's decision sequence.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers what the first call returns (confirm_token) and what the caller must do with it. A one-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool needs nothing more.

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 a single parameter whose semantics (omit to preview, supply to confirm) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description largely restates that contract, adding only the emphasis on 'identical arguments', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (unblock), a specific resource (every user you've blocked), and the exact bulk scope, plus an in-app anchor (Profile → Unblock All Users) that removes ambiguity. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling block_user and from the collection/bottle tools.

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?

Spells out the required two-step sequence: first call only previews and returns confirm_token, and the second call with the token happens only after the user agrees. That is an explicit when-to-call/when-not-to-call rule rather than inferred guidance.

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