Unmute a peer

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

Annotations include openWorldHint and idempotentHint, which already convey that the tool may have world effects and is safe to repeat. The description adds little beyond what the annotations provide, offering no additional detail about side effects (e.g., re-enabling notifications) or required permissions. It is minimally adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action clearly and efficiently, earning a high score for conciseness despite the brevity.

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 a simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It lacks essential context about parameter meaning and usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional inference.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'peer' or 'accountId' parameters. It fails to compensate for the empty schema, leaving the agent to guess what 'peer' refers to (user ID, chat ID, etc.) and the role of 'accountId'. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 'Clear a mute on a chat' clearly identifies the action and resource. It directly contrasts with the sibling tool mute_peer, effectively distinguishing it as the inverse operation. The title 'Unmute a peer' reinforces the specific verb and object.

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 implies usage when a mute needs to be removed, but provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's the inverse of mute_peer or reference any related settings tools, leaving usage largely inferred.

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