ariel_unblock

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the block record is automatically resolved from viewer state, which is useful but not elaborated. It does not describe side effects, irreversibility, or failure modes beyond what the annotation implies. This is a reasonable but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about auto-resolution is placed second. Every word serves a purpose, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter destructive action with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'viewer state' means, nor does it mention what happens if the user is not currently blocked or if the actor is invalid. These gaps are minor but could confuse an agent. The output schema is absent, so return behavior is also unaddressed.

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 has 100% coverage for its single parameter, which is described as 'Handle or DID of the user to unblock'. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, but the schema fully documents it. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Unblock a user'. It adds a detail about auto-resolving the block record, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ariel_block. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the inverse operation or mention specific conditions, so it's clear but not exemplary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The auto-resolution note hints at usage but does not explain when it's appropriate or how it differs from, say, unfollow or unmute. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools.

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