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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: it ends the friendship, closes the conversation, the other side is not told, cannot be undone from here, and requires confirmation. This is richer than the structured hints.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the action and condition, then side effects, then prerequisite and alternative. No sentence is redundant or meandering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the dangerous side effects, irreversibility, notification behavior, confirmation requirement, and alternative tool. The only gap is conversationId discovery/format, which is minor but leaves one parameter underspecified.

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 50%: confirm has a schema description, but conversationId has none. The description reinforces the confirm workflow ('ask the person, then call with confirm: true') and implies conversationId scopes the block, but it does not document conversationId's format, source, or semantics, leaving half the parameters underspecified.

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) and resource (the other person in a conversation), and distinguishes itself from sibling flag_conversation by naming that alternative. The purpose is immediately clear and not tautological.

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?

Explicitly gives when to use it ('when the person asks or clearly wants it') and names the alternative for danger ('use flag_conversation — always allowed'). It also supplies the required confirmation sequence ('ask the person, then call with confirm: true').

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