contacts_unblock

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a confirmation-before-acting requirement, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but its 'reaches other people, deletes, or redirects data' phrasing is boilerplate that does not describe what unblocking actually changes.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first line, but the middle boilerplate sentence is vague and partly irrelevant to unblocking, and the endpoint/gRPC/socket line adds routing metadata of limited value to an agent choosing a tool.

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?

Annotations cover the mutation safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the description need not cover return values. However, it omits what an unblock restores (message delivery? prior status?) and leaves both identifiers undocumented, which is a real gap for a two-param mutation.

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 says nothing about channelId or contactId, so neither parameter's meaning is clarified anywhere beyond its type and example. With two required params and zero documentation, the description fails to compensate.

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 first line states a specific verb+resource ('Unblock a contact on the platform'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly point at the inverse sibling contacts_block or explain scope, but the action is unmistakable.

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 only guidance is a generic instruction to confirm with the user first; there is no indication of when to unblock versus using contacts_block, contacts_update_status, or contacts_delete, nor any prerequisites. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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