stalwart_unblock_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive' and states that confirm must be True to proceed, which is valuable safety information. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as reversibility, side effects, or the nature of the return value.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second warns about destructiveness, and the argument list is presented clearly. Every sentence earns its place with minimal redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the essential usage (how to get ip_id, confirm requirement). An output schema exists (as per context), so the lack of return value details is acceptable. The description is sufficient for a straightforward operation, though it could mention any side effects or prerequisites beyond the confirm flag.

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?

The input schema provides only type information (string, boolean) with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that ip_id is a 'blocked ip id (from stalwart_list_objects(obj_type='blocked_ip'))' and that confirm 'must be True to proceed'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema fields.

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 clearly states 'Remove an IP block' which is a specific verb + resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stalwart_block_ip, stalwart_allow_ip, and stalwart_unallow_ip by focusing on the unblock action. The destructive warning further clarifies the intent.

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 provides clear context on how to obtain the required ip_id (from stalwart_list_objects) and the necessity of confirm=True. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like stalwart_allow_ip or stalwart_unallow_ip; the usage is implied rather than explicitly differentiated.

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