marketplace_unblock_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and an ownership requirement. It does not mention whether removal is reversible, what happens to the user's access, any permissions beyond ownership, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and a key restriction. There is no fluff or repetition. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the schema covers the parameter fully. However, the description omits any explanation of how entryId is obtained, what an unblocked user gains, or any follow-up information. It is minimally viable but lacks helpful context that would be expected for a lifecycle action like unblocking.

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 the only parameter, entryId, with the description 'The blocklist entry ID to remove'. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate, but it also provides no extra value.

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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a user from the blocklist'. It identifies the resource (user/blocklist) and the verb (remove), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like marketplace_block_user which adds to the blocklist. The parenthetical '(tool owner only)' adds an important scope restriction.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marketplace_block_user or marketplace_allowlist_user. The 'tool owner only' restriction provides some context about authorization, but there is no statement about prerequisites, conditions for unblocking, or contrast with related tools. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description rather than explicit.

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