Unblock places

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It labels the tool as 'Destructive' and lists required fields, including a header (Partner-Name) not in the schema. This provides essential behavioral context 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?

Two sentences convey the purpose, endpoint, destructiveness, and requirements with zero redundancy. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: it is destructive, requires confirm and prior block IDs, and mentions a required header. It lacks details about error responses or side effects, but is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds value by mentioning 'Partner-Name' (a header not in schema) and reiterating that confirm must be true. It compensates for the coverage gap and clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 'Unblock restaurant(s) (POST /unblock)', specifying the action and resource. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling 'yandex_eats_block_places' which performs the opposite operation.

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 indicates prerequisites: 'Requires confirm=true, Partner-Name, and blockIds from a prior block/status response.' This tells the agent when to use it (after a block action) and what inputs are necessary, though alternatives are not explicitly mentioned.

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