unblacklist_users

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already contain. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, invalid openid handling, rate limits, or confirmation implications despite annotations showing readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. There is no contradiction, but no value beyond the structured hints.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though brevity comes at the expense of parameter and alternative guidance.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the minimal description may allow a basic call, but it lacks critical context: openid_list semantics, array constraints, relationship to blacklist_users/list_blacklist, and behavior on partial failures. The annotations are sparse, so the description should carry more of the burden.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it never mentions openid_list or its semantics. The only implicit link is that 'users' likely corresponds to the openid_list array; no details about OpenID format, array limits, or behavior for invalid entries are provided.

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 '批量取消拉黑用户' clearly states a specific action (unblacklisting users in batches) on a specific resource. It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like blacklist_users or list_blacklist.

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 usage context is implied by the verb '取消拉黑' (unblacklist) and by the sibling tool blacklist_users, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the inverse operation of blacklisting.

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