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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: what blocking actually does ('cannot post new content') and that it is reversible ('until unblocked'). It does not explain what happens on repeat invocation despite idempotentHint=false, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the effect stated immediately. The leading 'Block author' line restates the title and the second sentence re-states the verb, so there is minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 destructive, nested-body mutation tool, the description omits relevant context: that 'reason' is persisted and emitted in a webhook, and the projectId scoping rule (organization keys must name a project). Annotations cover the destructiveness, but the operational caveats are left to the schema.

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?

The description says nothing about parameters, and the aggregated schema coverage is reported as 0% at the top level — the 'request' wrapper is undocumented. However, the nested properties (id, body.reason, projectId) do carry schema descriptions, so param meaning is recoverable from the schema itself; the description simply adds no value here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Block an author') and states the concrete effect ('A blocked author cannot post new content'). It does not distinguish this from the sibling tool authors-suspend, which is the obvious ambiguity an agent would face, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to block versus suspend (a direct sibling), and no stated prerequisites such as required project scoping or API-key permissions. The only implicit routing signal is the phrase 'until unblocked', which hints at the reverse operation but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool.

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