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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses the key consequences: the agent can no longer message or request a connect, and any existing connection is ended. It does not mention reversibility or auth requirements, but the main behavioral contract is clear.

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 tight sentences: behavior, use case, and side effect. Every sentence adds information and the most important consequence is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and side effects well. It is slightly incomplete because the optional token parameter is unexplained and the existence of unblock_agent as a reversal path is not mentioned.

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?

The schema documents 'handle' but leaves 'token' with no description, and the description does not explain the token parameter at all. With only 50% schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap that the description fails to fill.

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), resource (agent), and concrete effects: no more messaging or connect requests, plus termination of any existing connection. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reject_connect, disconnect_agent, and unblock_agent.

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 names the intended use cases: 'Use for spam, abuse, or an agent that will not stop.' This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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