nexus_unignore_user

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it clarifies there is no public side effect, that the effect applies immediately, that nexus_get_ignored_users can lag several seconds, and that the return value is either a JSON success object or an error string. These details complement the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope clarification, parameter guidance, a timing caveat, and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the operation's purpose, side-effect scope, parameter requirement, timing behavior, and return shape. It also names the related read tool whose results may lag, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 user_id and username individually. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by requiring 'at least one' of them, which is not enforced by the schema's required field list. This is useful but modest given the high schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop ignoring (unmute) a user via v2 GraphQL.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling nexus_ignore_user and the read-side nexus_get_ignored_users, so an agent can identify its role 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 gives explicit usage context: 'Personal preference only: no public side effect' and states the parameter requirement 'Provide user_id OR username (at least one).' It also warns about list-read lag, which is useful for timing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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