bsky_unblock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement ('要認証') which is valuable, but doesn't describe what 'unblock' actually does behaviorally (e.g., whether it allows the unblocked user to see your posts, interact with you, etc.), what happens if the block_uri is invalid, or what the response looks like. For a social action tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just one short sentence with a parenthetical note. While perhaps too brief for full understanding, every word serves a purpose: the main action and an important constraint. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description's main gaps are in parameter explanation and behavioral context. For a social action tool that modifies user relationships, the description should provide more context about what unblocking means and how to use the parameters. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the two parameters (block_uri and acting_handle). It doesn't explain what a 'block_uri' is, how to obtain it, what format it should be in, or what 'acting_handle' represents. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'ブロックを解除します' (unblocks) with the parenthetical '(要認証)' (requires authentication). It specifies the verb (unblock) and implies the resource (a blocked entity), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bsky_unmute' or 'bsky_unfollow' which perform related but distinct social actions.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bsky_block' (for blocking) or 'bsky_unmute' (for unmuting), nor does it explain prerequisites or appropriate contexts for unblocking versus other social actions.

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