Unblock users

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

Even with annotations present, the description adds substantive behavioral detail: the idempotent never-blocked behavior, per-PSID outcomes, and the required PAGE token scope with pages_manage_engagement and MODERATE task. It does not contradict the annotations and goes well beyond what they declare.

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 tightly packed sentences, each carrying distinct value: the action, the inverse relationship, the edge-case behavior, and the access requirements. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich input schema cover the essentials: what is removed, batching, authentication, idempotency, and per-item outcomes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters fully. The description reinforces the meaning of PSIDs and the batch limit, but it does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove up to 50 PSIDs from the Page's blocked list'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by calling itself 'the inverse of facebook_block_user', so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 explicitly positions this tool against facebook_block_user ('inverse of facebook_block_user'), which tells the agent when this tool applies and what it is not. It also adds practical context about restoring comment/message ability and the fact that unblocking an already-unblocked user does not error.

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