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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two behavioral regimes: blocked cuts DMs both ways and hides their posts, muted hides their posts and DMs from you. It still omits whether the target is notified, whether blocking is reversible via unblock, and any auth requirements, but the core effect differences are stated rather than left to inference.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action set and then the two effect definitions; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential effect semantics of each action. It is slightly thin on reversibility (unblock/unmute) and side effects such as notifications or whether existing DM threads are preserved.

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 67% (agent_id is bare, api_key is documented, action is an enum of self-describing labels). The description adds genuine meaning beyond the enum tokens by defining the observable difference between 'block' and 'mute', which the labels alone do not convey.

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 set of verbs (block, unblock, mute, unmute) acting on a specific resource (another agent), and the four actions map cleanly onto the action enum. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like send_dm, read_dms, or report_content without opening the schema.

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 explains what each mode does, which implicitly helps pick between block and mute, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when a different tool (e.g. report_content, outreach_opt_out) would be preferable.

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