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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type (JSON string) and the fallback to global tenant_id when project_key is omitted. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, overwrites existing config, or requires specific permissions.

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 Args and Returns sections, concise and without waste. The only structural flaw is the parameter naming inconsistency, which is a clarity issue but not a conciseness issue.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 4 optional parameters and an output schema. The description provides the purpose, return type, and one behavioral nuance, but misses a parameter and offers no usage context or relation to sibling tools. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers 3 of 4 parameters but uses camelCase names (connectionString, databaseName) that mismatch the schema's snake_case names, and it omits use_blocks_db entirely. The note about project_key default is helpful but the inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 clearly states 'Configure Blocks Data Gateway for GraphQL operations,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling getter get_blocks_data_gateway_config, though it could be more explicit about what configuration entails beyond connection details.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling get_blocks_data_gateway_config. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for invocation.

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