Unblock client

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

The description usefully discloses that nothing is sent and that the call fails, which is real behavioral context. However, this directly conflicts with the annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), so an agent cannot reconcile whether the call mutates state or is a no-op, which is precisely the kind of conflict that causes wrong tool selection.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Not supported' plus the consequence and the reason it still exists. Nothing is wasted and the critical warning comes first.

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 three-parameter stub with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: no API action, error result, no side effects, kept for compatibility. It could state what the error response looks like so an agent can recognize the expected failure, but otherwise it is complete.

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 67%: confirm and dry_run are documented in the schema, clientId is not. The description adds the meaningful point that no parameter has any effect because nothing is sent, which neutralizes the undocumented clientId, but it never references any parameter by name.

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 states a specific, unambiguous purpose: this tool exists but performs no unblock action, returns an error, and sends nothing. That instantly distinguishes it from real mutation siblings such as unifi_net_block_client or unifi_net_client_action, which is exactly the differentiator an agent needs.

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 effectively tells the agent never to use this tool for a real unblock because the API has no such action, which is a clear usage exclusion. It stops short of naming the correct alternative (e.g. unifi_net_block_client or unifi_net_client_action) for reverting a block, leaving that inference to the agent.

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