Unmute an account

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate them. It adds some context by specifying that unmuting affects post visibility ('hiding'), but it does not describe side effects, idempotency behavior for already-unmuted accounts, or result details. Description does not contradict annotations.

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 one short sentence that communicates the core behavior with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, idempotent unmute operation, the description plus the rich schema and annotations are largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly connecting to mute_account, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (actor, account) with descriptions, including the actor handle/DID format and the optional acting-account behavior. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Stop hiding an account's posts' clearly identifies the action (unmute) and the affected resource (an account's posts). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with mute_account, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 wording implies this tool should be used to reverse a previous mute, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative selection (e.g., not for unblocking). Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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