unmute_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unmute a user' implies a mutation operation that reverses a mute, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent (safe to call on an already unmuted user), rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, usage, and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 doesn't mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('user_id') undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher (4), but the description adds no value beyond the schema's structure. It implies the parameter identifies the user to unmute but provides no format or context details.

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 'Unmute a user' clearly states the verb ('unmute') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'mute_user' beyond the obvious prefix difference, nor does it specify what platform or system this applies to, leaving some ambiguity.

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., the user must already be muted), context (e.g., after using 'mute_user'), or when not to use it (e.g., if the user isn't muted). With sibling tools like 'mute_user' and 'get_muted_users' available, this lack of guidance is a significant gap.

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