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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the side effects (friendship termination, content suppression in check_notes) and the authorization scope ('Any Oyeh connection can do this'), plus the consent requirement. It omits reversibility/unblock behavior and what happens on a repeat block, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 consent constraint is front-loaded in caps as the very first clause, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (effects, precondition, permissions) rather than padding. The all-caps fragment and slightly run-on first sentence cost it a point on polish, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequences, precondition, and permission scope, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is what the agent gets back and whether the block can be undone, neither of which is stated.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description is fully populated ('Who to block, e.g. @sam'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The prose adds nothing about handle format beyond the schema's example, so the baseline 3 for a well-documented single-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 (block) and resource (a person) and enumerates the concrete consequences: they can't send notes or friend requests, their content disappears from check_notes, and the friendship ends. It even distinguishes itself from the sibling check_notes by naming it directly, so an agent can tell block_friend apart from report_note or leave_note without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'Only after your person says to block them' — which is exactly the gating condition an agent needs for a destructive social action. It does not name alternatives (e.g. report_note or answer_friend_request) or say when blocking is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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