unblock_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the context that the operation targets a server ('на сервере'), which is minor value beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as side effects or confirmation requirements (which are in the schema). Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action. It is concise and free of fluff, though it borders on restating the tool name with only the added 'на сервере' context. This is efficient but lacks the richness of a more structured description.

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 simple action tool with full schema coverage and annotations providing the safety profile, the description is mostly complete. It names the action and target. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for such a simple operation, and no critical information appears missing, though it does not mention any return value or error behavior.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (id, ip, confirm), including the requirement that confirm must be true. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without needing to compensate.

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 'Снять блокировку IP-адреса на сервере' clearly states the specific verb (снять/remove) and resource (IP-address on server), unambiguously identifying the tool as the inverse of the sibling block_ip. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or differentiate beyond the inherent action, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 implies the tool is used to unblock an IP that has been blocked on a server, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use this when an IP is blocked'). The context is sufficient but not explicit, aligning with the 'implied usage' level.

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