Unmute bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the safety and repeat-call profile. The description adds only the outcome ('sends messages in chat again'), with no mention of required permissions, whether the unmute persists across sessions, or error behavior when the bot is not muted.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and wastes no words. Appropriate size for a zero-required-parameter state toggle.

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, single-parameter, no-output-schema state change with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It would be complete with a brief note on the muted precondition and how the channel default resolves.

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?

There is exactly one optional parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema fully documents 'channel' (24-char hex, default resolution order). The description adds nothing about the channel parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 ('Unmute') and resource ('the bot'), and the trailing clause clarifies the observable effect ('sends messages in chat again'). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling bot_mute, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this should be called when the bot is muted, but the description never states prerequisites (e.g., bot must currently be muted) or contrasts with alternatives. No when-not guidance is given.

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