unblock_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' without elaborating on side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to the card. For a destructive action, this is minimal and does not inform the agent of potential consequences.

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 redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource effectively. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation, though it could benefit from a bit more context.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks important context such as usage guidance, behavioral side effects, and any relationship to blocking operations. With two required parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly in various scenarios. It only covers the bare purpose.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (card_id and blocker_id), and the schema provides descriptive labels. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional context is 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 clearly states the action ('Release (delete)') and the resource ('a card blocker'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like block_card and update_card_blocker by indicating this is the removal operation. The parenthetical 'delete' reinforces the destructive nature.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as block_card or update_card_blocker. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer when to call this based solely on the name and siblings.

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