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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether the block record is deleted, whether the unblocked party is notified, or what authorization is needed.

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?

Four words is front-loaded to the point of under-specification; nothing is wasted, but there is no structure carrying intent, constraints, or the parameter meaning. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than efficiency.

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 one mandatory, entirely undocumented identifier and no output schema, the description should at minimum define "who" and state the effect of unblocking. Annotations cover only the safety profile, leaving the identifier format and post-condition unexplained.

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 0%, so the single required parameter "who" is completely undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate — it never states whether "who" is a handle, DID, account id, or display name, nor how to resolve an ambiguous identifier.

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?

"Lift a block" gives a verb (lift) and a resource (block), and the sibling pair contact_block/contact_unblock makes the intent recoverable. But the description never names the resource as a contact relationship, so the agent must infer scope from the tool name rather than the prose.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite that a block must exist, and no mention of contact_block as the inverse operation or of contact_accept as a different relationship transition. Usage must be fully inferred from the name.

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