unblock_user

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing two non-obvious behaviors: the AI resumes answering the user's next message, and the block row persists for audit so the identifier cannot be reused. This is exactly the kind of side-effect context annotations cannot convey. It does not mention permission requirements or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence and the identifier caveat. Every sentence adds information with no filler.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the surprising side effects an agent needs. It leaves minor gaps around error cases and how to discover valid ids.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter is documented as 'Numeric id.', which is ambiguous on its own; the description resolves this by implying the id is the block record identifier that is not reusable. That is meaningful disambiguation beyond the schema, though it could be stated more directly.

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 and resource ('Unblock a user') and immediately clarifies the effect on the AI, which distinguishes it from block_user and list_blocked_users. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it to reverse a block — but there is no explicit guidance such as where to obtain the id (presumably list_blocked_users) or what to do if the user was never blocked. Context is clear but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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