Unblock an account

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious side effect: follows severed by the original block do not automatically return, and both users must follow again. This is valuable behavioral context that an agent would not infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral caveat. There is no filler or repeated information.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what happens and the important consequence about follows. It is not missing critical information for an agent 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 actor and account are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given that the schema carries the full meaning.

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 clear action, 'Remove a block,' which maps directly to the tool's name and title. It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like block_account or unmute_account.

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 alternatives such as unmute_account or block_account. The description implies the obvious use case of reversing a block, but it does not explain when this tool is appropriate or how it differs from other relationship-modifying tools.

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