signals.unban

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

没有 annotations，因此描述承担行为披露责任。它明确说明了'解除自动拉黑'和'清空信号记录'两个行为，特别是披露了清空信号记录这一破坏性副作用。但未说明是否可逆或是否需要额外权限。

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?

一句话同时说明核心操作、适用场景和副作用，没有任何冗余信息，信息密度高且结构清晰。

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?

工具复杂度低：只有一个必填参数，且存在输出 schema。描述已覆盖目标对象、执行动作和副作用，足以让 agent 正确选择和调用，无需额外上下文。

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 描述覆盖率为 0%，但唯一参数 seller_nick 本身含义清晰，描述中'某个卖家'也确认了该参数指向目标卖家。不过描述未提供格式、精确匹配要求或额外约束，只能部分弥补 schema 的不足。

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?

描述以明确动词'解除'指向'自动拉黑'这一具体资源，并补充'误判恢复'场景和'同时清空其信号记录'的副作用，能够与 siblings 中的 signals.list、blacklist.remove 区分开。

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?

'误判恢复'隐含了适用场景：卖家被自动拉黑且属于误判时使用。但描述没有明确说明何时不要使用，也没有与 blacklist.remove 等替代工具做对比，仅能靠推断。

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