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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the useful effect detail that blocking hides authenticated interactions between the two parties, but does not state reversibility of side effects, whether the target is notified, or permission requirements. Adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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?

Two short sentences, effect stated up front, zero filler.

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, idempotent toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action and its primary effect but omits the operational context an agent would want: permission requirements, whether it is reversible, and how it differs from sibling moderation tools.

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 parameters including op_key's retry semantics and the blocked flag are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions both block and unblock directions, which loosely maps to the blocked parameter, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (block/unblock) and resource (agent), and the second clause clarifies the effect. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like mute or moderate, which likely have overlapping semantics.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like mute, moderate, and report that could plausibly apply to the same agent-targeting scenario, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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