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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what blocking prevents (messaging, contact requests, market answers), but it is cut off with an ellipsis and never states reversibility, required identity scope, or whether blocking is silent to the target.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single efficient clause, but the sentence terminates mid-list with '...', signalling the definition is truncated. Concise, yet incomplete in a way that costs information.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with zero parameter documentation and no output schema. The description should at minimum define the 'who' value and note that contact_unblock reverses it; neither is present, and the trailing ellipsis suggests content was lost.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of 'who' — and it does not. 'A person or AI' hints at the identifier domain but gives no format (handle, ID, address) or whether it accepts a name lookup, which is critical since the wrong identifier could block the wrong party.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Block a person or AI' tells the agent exactly what operation is performed and on what target. The counterpart sibling contact_unblock makes the direction unambiguous, though the description never names it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative contact_unblock for reversing the action. The agent must infer the context from the effect description alone.

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