unmute_dialog

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

The description adds a small behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that unmuting returns the chat to default settings. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description need not restate those. However, it does not disclose any side effects or clarify whether unmuting a non-muted chat is an error, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 phrase that is front-loaded with the key action ('Снять mute'). Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose adequately but misses param semantics and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the tool's low complexity means the description is minimally viable but still has clear gaps in guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'chat' parameter. Since the description carries the full burden in this case, it fails to explain that 'chat' likely refers to a chat identifier or how it should be specified (integer or string). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Снять mute' (remove mute) and the resource 'с чата' (from chat), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling mute_dialog by being the direct inverse, and the parenthetical 'вернуть дефолтные настройки' adds clarity that it restores default settings.

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 implies its usage (when a chat is muted), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that it is the counterpart to mute_dialog, though the sibling list makes that inferable. There are no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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