chats_unmute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the backend dispatch details (POST /api/kalagh/chats/unmute, gRPC UnmuteChat, socket event) but says nothing about auth requirements, idempotency, or side effects on notification state.

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 definition is one short, front-loaded statement with the action first and the transport details parenthetically appended. Nothing is padded, though the transport triple is marginally useful at best.

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 output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at least confirm the inverse relationship with chats_mute and the state it changes. It omits this, so an agent must reconstruct the semantics from the name and sibling list.

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 the description supplies no meaning for chatId or channelId, leaving two required identifiers documented only by example values. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, so an agent gets no help understanding which identifier scope is required.

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 verb and resource ("Unmute a chat") and supplements it with the transport mappings (HTTP path, gRPC method, socket event), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly relate itself to its inverse sibling chats_mute, leaving the agent to infer the pairing from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus chats_mute, whether the chat must currently be muted, or any preconditions. The only context given is transport plumbing, which does not help an agent choose between tools.

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