remove_blocklist_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a mutating operation and its effect, but does not mention permanence, idempotency, authorization needs, or what the response will contain.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and consequence.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, a single required and well-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It could be improved by noting permanence or response behavior, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the provided information.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% documentation coverage, including the helpful note that ids come from get_blocklist. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('blocklist'), and states the intended effect ('so those releases can be grabbed again'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blocklist and remove_queue_items.

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 phrase 'so those releases can be grabbed again' implies the appropriate use case: unblocking entries that should become eligible for grabbing again. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as remove_queue_items.

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