unblock_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Unblock a user' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after unblocking (e.g., can the user interact again immediately?). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for a mutation 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 maximally concise with just three words that directly state the tool's function. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is insufficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and multiple sibling tools in a social media context, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to address critical context like permissions, side effects, relationships to 'block_user', or parameter guidance. It's inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'user_id', the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what format the user_id should be (numeric ID, username, etc.), where to find it, or any validation requirements. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 'Unblock a user' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates the action (unblock) and target (user), it doesn't specify what 'unblock' means in this context or differentiate it from related tools like 'block_user' or 'get_blocked_users' beyond the obvious directional difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be blocked first), related tools like 'block_user' or 'get_blocked_users', or any context about permissions or typical use cases. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the tool name itself.

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