Unblock a user

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the consequence of the action (user can message again) and the source of the id, but does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as idempotency edge cases or error behavior.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core action and effect are front-loaded, and the source instruction is placed last without wasting words.

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 one-parameter unblock action, the description covers what the tool does, the effect, and how to source the required id. The output schema exists and annotations cover destructive nature, so nothing critical is missing.

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 parameter already has a description. The description adds value by specifying where the block_id comes from, which is actionable guidance for an agent. It slightly goes above the schema-only baseline.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove a block') and states the intended effect: the user can message the authenticated account again. It is clearly distinct from repovive_block_user and repovive_list_blocked_users.

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 explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the block_id ('Take the block id from repovive_list_blocked_users'), giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly contrast with block_user, but the inverse action is obvious from context.

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