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

The description discloses the key side effect beyond annotations: marking the prospect blocked on the current node and preventing re-dispatch, with clearing behavior on any later node move. Since readOnlyHint=false already signals a write, this adds meaningful context about exactly what changes and how it is reversed.

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 well-structured with a summary paragraph and a returns element, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is a bit wordy in places ('retrying identically would fail identically') but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

Given this is a side-effectful reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call it, what side effect it triggers, how the block is cleared, required parameter constraints, and a brief return description. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the meaning of node_id by tying it to the prospect's current node and gives reason examples, but it does not add substantial parameter-level semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('report that a flow step could not be performed'), the affected resource (a prospect on a flow node), and the concrete mechanism (marks prospect blocked, stops re-dispatching). It also distinguishes itself from retry_blocked_enactment by noting retrying identically would fail identically.

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?

It states explicit conditions for use ('LinkedIn disconnected, unreachable profile, no valid recipient'), provides an explicit directive ('Call this for every prospect you cannot enqueue or route... never silently skip one'), and clarifies the block lifecycle. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling retry_blocked_enactment is clearly implied by the contrast.

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