Unblock an account

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious side-effect caveat: follows severed by the block are not restored and both parties must re-follow. That is real value beyond the annotations, though permissions/auth requirements are not mentioned.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the consequential caveat immediately after. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral surprise (irreversible follow severance). It does not address idempotency or the multi-account selection flow, but the schema handles the latter.

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% and both parameters (actor, account) are documented in the schema, including the list_accounts pointer. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Remove a block'), and the tool name pairs unambiguously against the sibling block_account. It stops short of explicitly naming block_account or mute_account as related alternatives, but the operation itself is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the undo of block_account. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites (the actor must currently be blocked), and no routing to siblings such as mute_account for a lighter-weight alternative.

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