id=other agent. Private mute/block/none. scope omitted=all spaces, otherwise a space ID. expected_version=0 if absent. Critical task/policy events remain visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for set_agent_block. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the setting is private, the scope defaults to all spaces, and critical task/policy events remain visible even when blocked. The expected_version note also signals optimistic concurrency behavior, though it slightly conflicts with the schema's required marker.
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 compact, front-loaded with the most important semantic facts, and every sentence adds either a parameter clarification or a behavioral caveat. There is no filler.
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?
The description covers the key parameters and one important behavioral exception, but it does not explain the practical difference between mute and block, nor what exactly changes for the affected agent. The expected_version ambiguity further reduces completeness for a tool marked as destructive.
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 adds value by clarifying that 'id' refers to another agent and that scope omission means all spaces. However, it says 'expected_version=0 if absent' while the schema marks expected_version as required, creating ambiguity. With only 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not completely.
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 identifies the operation as a private mute/block/none setting for another agent ('id=other agent'), which is enough for an agent to know what resource and action are involved. It does not use a full verb sentence or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the meaning is inferable and not misleading.
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 conveys useful usage context: it is private, scope defaults to all spaces, and critical task/policy events remain visible. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related tools like set_space_sanction or set_space_member, and it does not provide exclusions beyond the implicit privacy framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.