include_chats

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that purged data is not restored and that it is a local-index operation independent of a live LINE session, providing essential behavioral context.

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 sentences: the first conveys the core purpose, and the second adds critical side effects and operational context. No redundant information, and the most important point is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, and operational context well. However, it omits mention of the return value or confirmation behavior, which would be helpful given no output schema. This is a minor gap for an otherwise complete description.

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 tool description adds no detail about the 'chatIds' parameter beyond what the input schema already provides ('LINE chat/group/room MIDs to re-include.'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description meets baseline expectations but does not enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action: 'Remove conversations from Yomi's denylist, re-allowing future capture.' It specifies the resource (conversations) and effect, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'exclude_chats' which does the opposite.

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 implies usage for re-including previously excluded chats but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'exclude_chats' or 'list_excluded_chats'. No when-not guidance is provided.

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