ddflow_unblock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the recursive cascade, the exit-2 nothing-to-do outcome when nothing is blocked, and that release requires operator authority. It doesn't cover permissions/auth mechanics or reversibility beyond the implicit block/unblock pairing, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its cascade, and every sentence carries information (inverse relationship, operator authority, exit-2 case). It is dense to the point of being run-on, but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the cascade behavior, the authority requirement, and the failure signal. Remaining gaps (auth mechanics, what a successful return looks like) are minor given the operational framing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by revealing that the id may be a phase id (releasing a whole section), which the schema's bare 'Item id' does not convey. The note and as_agent parameters are left to the schema.

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 (release) plus resource (BLOCKED item and every blocked item beneath it), and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of ddflow_block, letting an agent distinguish it from that sibling without opening a schema. The cascade scope is spelled out.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases (deferred work, an archived section an import landed as blocked, passing a phase id to release a section) and an explicit when-NOT (do not release held work on your own judgement; it happens once the OPERATOR says so). The alternative, ddflow_block, is named as the inverse.

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