avito_unblock_conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds some context by saying it modifies the blocking state and is not a simple read, which reinforces the non-read nature but does not elaborate on what exactly is destroyed, reversibility, or required permissions. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the added behavioral detail is modest.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It immediately names the action and then adds the key clarifications without 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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It notes the connected account context and that the tool modifies state rather than reading, which are the key operational facts. It omits explicit mention of idempotency or destructive scope, but annotations cover those aspects.

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%, and the single conversationId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource: 'Débloque explicitement une conversation Avito' (explicitly unblocks an Avito conversation). It also clarifies that it changes the blocking state and is not a read, helping distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like avito_get_conversation or avito_list_conversations. However, it does not explicitly name the inverse sibling avito_block_conversation, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'ne pas confondre avec une simple lecture' gives an implied usage boundary against read-only tools, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as avito_block_conversation, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly instructed.

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