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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing that blockers are additive, that calling this sets status to blocked, that resolver creation/linking is mutually exclusive, and that removing the last active blocker restores the previous status. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short sentences pack in the core action, additive behavior, status effect, resolver options, mutual exclusivity, and restoration rule. Nothing is redundant and the most important facts come first.

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 write operation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is unusually thorough: it covers side effects, optional resolver handling, and lifecycle behavior. It could still be slightly more complete by clarifying that resolverParentId/resolverDescription only apply to the inline-creation path, but this is inferable from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds a little context by naming resolverTitle and linkedGoalId and restating their mutual exclusivity, but it does not need to compensate for gaps; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a blocker to a goal', and immediately distinguishes this from many sibling tools by noting blockers are additive and set the status to blocked. It also names the related goal-remove-blocker tool, so an agent can tell this is the blocking operation, not a note/assumption/criterion operation.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: any time a blocker should be added to a goal, including the status effect and optional resolver behavior. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools to prefer for related-but-different operations, but the blocker-specific semantics and reference to goal-remove-blocker give enough context to choose correctly.

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