bsky_unmute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that authentication is required ('要認証'), which is useful but insufficient. It doesn't describe what 'unmuting' entails (e.g., does it restore notifications, affect timeline visibility, or have side effects?), whether it's reversible, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 (one short sentence) and front-loaded with the core action and key requirement. There's no wasted language, making it efficient despite its simplicity.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no information about the two parameters ('handle' and 'acting_handle'), their meanings, formats, or how they relate to the unmute operation. This fails to add value beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 action ('ミュートを解除します' - unmutes) and specifies it requires authentication ('要認証'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bsky_mute' or 'bsky_unblock', though the name itself suggests it's the inverse of 'bsky_mute'.

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 mentions authentication is required, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'bsky_unblock' or 'bsky_unfollow'.

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