unblock_sender

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic removal action but does not mention side effects (e.g., permanent deletion), error behavior when no filter matches, or what happens if multiple filters match the sender. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that state the action and parameter selection. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it falls short of full completeness. It does not describe failure modes, idempotency, or how the tool relates to block_sender, leaving some gaps for a simple but mutating tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the difference between filter_id ('exact match') and sender ('matches filters whose from criteria equals this value'). It clarifies when each parameter is appropriate, complementing the schema's field descriptions.

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 tool's action ('Remove a Gmail filter') and the resource it operates on. It distinguishes itself from siblings like block_sender and list_blocked_senders by the inverse relationship implied by the name and the specific filter-matching criteria.

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 provides guidance on parameter selection ('Specify either filter_id or sender') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The usage context is implied by the name and sibling tools, not spelled out.

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