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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, but the description adds critical context: blocking does not remove the file from listings, and there is no unblock tool (user must use the ShareWatch dashboard). This goes beyond annotations and fully discloses the irreversible gating behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and trigger, then side effects and critical user guidance. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, what it doesn't do, and the lack of an unblock path. An agent has sufficient information to call it correctly and inform the user appropriately.

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 100%, so both file_id and reason are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only reiterates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Block MCP access to a file') and clearly distinguishes its effect from un-sharing or deletion by explaining it only gates access. It names the user-facing trigger (mistaken share or want access stopped), which differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_file or set_file_read_only.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (user shared by mistake or wants access stopped) and clarifies what it does not do (un-share) and that there is no unblock tool, with guidance to tell the user. However, it does not name alternative tools like delete_file or set_file_read_only, nor provide explicit when-not conditions, so it misses the full 5.

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