unblock_client

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses that this is a mutating operation that clears a persistent block set by block_client. It does not discuss permissions or return values, but it clearly communicates the key behavioral effect and persistence semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, a short mutating-operation warning with alternatives, then the parameter list. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter, idempotent unblock operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mutation behavior, parameter semantics, and alternatives. There is no critical missing information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The Args section mostly restates the schema descriptions without adding extra constraints, formats, or side-effect details, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a prior block so a client can reconnect to the network.' It also distinguishes itself from block_client and kick_client by naming them, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use block_client to re-block, or kick_client for a non-persistent disconnect. This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool versus the relevant sibling tools.

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