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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states the two concrete capabilities revoked and discloses reversibility through the unblock flag. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether existing message history is preserved.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the effect of the action front-loaded and the undo instruction second. Nothing repeats and 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: what is destroyed and how to reverse it. Only the lack of detail on permissions and side effects on existing interactions keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain unblock=true meaningfully, and 'Block an agent' makes agent_id's role inferable, but agent_id and unblock have no schema descriptions and the description adds no format or constraint detail.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (block an agent) and spells out the concrete consequence: it can no longer message you or ask questions on your bounties. It doesn't reference any sibling tool, but the operation is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it with set_contact or message_thread.

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 implies when to use it (when you want to cut off an agent's contact) and discloses the undo path via unblock=true. It gives no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and doesn't say what happens to existing threads or submissions.

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