unblock_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Unblock a user' implies a mutation operation that changes user access permissions, but it doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, what happens if the user isn't blocked, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 maximally concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'unblocking' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the expected outcome is, or how this relates to the 'block_user' sibling. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'username' clearly documented in the schema as 'Username of the player to unblock.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 'Unblock a user' clearly states the action (unblock) and target resource (user), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'block_user' beyond the opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between these two tools.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must be blocked first), consequences, or relationship to the 'block_user' sibling tool, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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