nexus_ignore_user

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the action is private, reversible, applies immediately, and that list reads can lag several seconds. It also states the return shape. These are meaningful behavioral traits that the annotations do not provide, making the description genuinely informative.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, privacy scope, reversibility, parameter requirement, read-lag warning, and return format are all covered in a few compact lines. The description is front-loaded with the core behavior and wastes no words.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when it should be used, how parameters relate, behavior after invocation, reversibility, and the response format. There are no significant gaps an agent would need to fill by guessing.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds the important clarification that at least one of user_id or username must be provided, which is not obvious from the schema since both are nullable and no parameters are marked required. This adds real value beyond the schema.

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: 'Ignore (mute) a user' and immediately clarifies the observable effect: 'hides their content in your feed.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by explicitly naming the reverse operation, nexus_unignore_user, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear context: it is a personal, private preference with no public side effect, and it points to nexus_unignore_user as the reversible counterpart. It also warns about read lag when verifying via nexus_get_ignored_users. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use this only when...' or 'do not use when...', so it is strong but not perfectly explicit.

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