unban_ip

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-read-only mutation; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that it 'Acts on the instances immediately', warning the agent that there is no staging or confirmation step. It leaves out error behavior for unknown or non-banned IPs and permission requirements, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the prerequisite, then the behavioral warning. Nothing is redundant and every sentence adds information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what to do first, and that the effect is immediate. It could still say what happens on partial failures across the bans array or whether unbanning an already-unbanned IP is a no-op, but nothing essential is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested UnbanPayload already documents ip and service. The description only hints at semantics by saying 'globally or per service', loosely implying that omitting service means a global unban, but it never states that mapping explicitly. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lift bans for ... IPs') plus its scope ('globally or per service'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like ban_ip and list_bans. It stops short of naming the inverse operation explicitly, but the resource-level precision is enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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?

'Use list_bans first to find them' gives an explicit prerequisite and points at the sibling that produces valid inputs. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to use ban_ip instead), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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