todo_unblock

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state and repeated calls differ. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that—it doesn't say whether the blocker record is deleted or just the link, nor whether the blocker_id must pre-exist.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded with the core operation. Efficient, though it could have spent a few more words on parameter/behavior clarity.

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?

With an output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description needn't explain returns. However, for a destructive two-required-param mutation it leaves the identity of todo_id vs blocker_id and the required relationship state unclear.

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 only 33%: todo_id and blocker_id are undocumented in both schema and description. The description never clarifies which todo is the blocked one versus the blocker, or the parameter meanings, leaving the two required params ambiguous.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('blocker relationship from a todo'), which clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling todo_block. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with the sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the relationship must exist), and does not reference the related todo_block or alternative tools. An agent must infer all usage context.

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