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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent semantics. The description adds specific behavioral context: it prevents messaging and connect requests and ends any existing connection. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the operation's side effects.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose and effects front-loaded, followed by practical usage guidance. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema documentation and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context, including side effects on existing connections. It does not discuss return values or irreversibility, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter detail. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema: 'handle' is already documented as 'Handle to block', and the token parameter is fully explained in the schema.

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 the operation ('Block an agent') and its specific behavioral effects: the agent can no longer message or request a connect, and any existing connection is ended. This is a concrete verb+resource definition, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like disconnect_agent or 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?

The description gives concrete, actionable use cases: 'Use for spam, abuse, or an agent that will not stop.' It clearly communicates when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when to prefer disconnect_agent or unblock_agent.

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