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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint, but the description goes further and names exactly what is destroyed ('删除对方本场已有资料及私有对象') and that it is irreversible. It also discloses the preview-by-default safety behavior and the consent/previewHash gate, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the login/organizer constraint and scope before the destructive detail, and every clause carries information. The telegraphic, semicolon-heavy style is dense but appropriate for a 7-parameter destructive tool; slightly more structure would aid scanning.

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, multi-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers authorization, scope, irreversibility, and the complete preview-then-commit handshake an agent must follow to call it correctly. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 carry the burden and largely does: blocked=true/false semantics, removeExisting=true's destructive effect, consent=true, preview defaulting to true, and previewHash's role in the commit call. Only activityRef/previewHash format details are left to the schema's own constraints.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource — block or restore a given user's ability to upload to this activity's album — and scopes it to a single userId/activity. It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling (get_activity_album_moderation) and from other user-blocking tools (block_user) by naming the album-upload domain.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites (login required, organizer only) and hard exclusions ('不能禁自己或活动管理者'), plus the two-step usage pattern (preview by default, then re-issue with previewHash/consent=true/preview=false). It does not name a read-only alternative for inspecting current moderation state, so it stops short of a full when-not statement.

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