Unblock client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the useful relationship to block_client but says nothing about permission requirements or what state changes/return value to expect, which is the remaining gap.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds information (the inverse operation and the addressing key). No waste.

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 one-parameter toggle-style operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor gaps remain (error behavior for unknown/unblocked MACs), and no output schema exists to clarify results.

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 coverage is 100% with an inline example (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff), so the schema does the work. The description only identifies the MAC as the target selector, adding nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'Unblock' plus resource 'a device blocked by block_client', with the addressing key (MAC) stated. An agent can distinguish it immediately from the sibling block_client and from update_client.

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 names block_client as the inverse operation, which effectively signals when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't state preconditions (e.g. what happens if the MAC isn't currently blocked) or explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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