processing_unblock

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

Annotations only give safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them – an approval/auth requirement (researcher review) and a rate/cost constraint ('Budget checks still apply'). It does not disclose what state change the acknowledgement produces, keeping it 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?

Two compact sentences with the critical precondition front-loaded ('ONLY after...'). No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though the terse phrasing leaves meaning implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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?

A five-required-parameter write operation with no output schema and only minimal annotations needs the description to carry more weight. It supplies the gating precondition but omits any explanation of the parameters (notably expectedRevision, which implies concurrency control), leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly from the definition alone.

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 description coverage is 0% and all five parameters (projectId, expectedRevision, reviewer, approvalText, resolutionNote) are required but entirely undocumented. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Only the 'reviewer' concept is loosely echoed by 'researcher review'.

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+resource ('acknowledge a processing incident'), which an agent can act on. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like processing_queue or page_retry, though the gating condition implicitly separates it from those. Slightly at odds with the tool name 'processing_unblock', which the description does not reconcile.

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?

Provides an explicit, emphatic precondition: 'ONLY after explicit researcher review and correction of provider pricing/token limits'. This tells the agent when the tool is valid. It stops short of naming alternative tools or describing what to do if the precondition is unmet, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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