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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: additive behavior (each call appends, existing blockers preserved), status change to blocked, the mutual exclusivity of resolver options, and the status-revert mechanism when all blockers are removed. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct, necessary information: main action, status change, optional resolver behavior, and removal lifecycle. There is no redundancy or filler; it is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently covers the key nuances.

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?

The description covers the core aspects for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema: additive semantics, status side-effect, resolver creation/linking options, and the effect of removal. It does not mention edge cases like what happens if the goal is already blocked or whether the resolver goal persists after blocker removal, but these are minor relative to the overall completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of resolverTitle and linkedGoalId, and clarifying that resolverParentId defaults to goalId (making the resolver a child). It also ties the overall additive behavior to the call semantics, enriching parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Add a blocker to a goal', combining a specific verb with a clear resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like goal-add-note or goal-add-assumption by explicitly focusing on blockers and their additive, status-changing behavior.

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 provides clear context: blockers are additive, each call appends a new one, and the goal's status is set to blocked. It also mentions the complementary tool goal-remove-blocker and the effect of removing the last blocker, guiding lifecycle usage. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for this mutation tool.

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