Accept, mute, lock, leave or prune a Bluesky DM conversation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds crucial behavioral details: self-only delete, irreversible leave, accept idempotency reporting, and auth requirement. This fully discloses the risky aspects of the tool.

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 lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose, covering actions, caveats, and prerequisites. It's front-loaded with the action list, and the bolded warnings draw attention to the most important risks. Slightly verbose but efficient for its complexity.

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 multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, this description covers all necessary context: the full action set, edge cases (already-accepted requests), irreversible operations, auth requirements, and ID sourcing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by explaining the deleteMessage action requires messageId and that convoId comes from list_bluesky_convos, but these are also in the schema. It doesn't significantly amplify schema meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly lists the verbs (ACCEPT, MUTE, LOCK, LEAVE, DELETE) and the resource (one Bluesky DM conversation), and differentiates it from siblings by pointing to list_bluesky_convos and read_bluesky_dm for IDs. It's unambiguous and specific.

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?

It clearly instructs when to use this tool (acting on a conversation) and provides critical caveats for deletion and leaving, plus the source for convoId. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives to exclude, but it gives actionable guidance for correct use.

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