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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key consequence: after unblocking, the agent remains disconnected until a connect request is made. However, it does not mention whether the block is fully reversible, any permissions required, or the state of the connection afterwards beyond the disconnected note. It is accurate but minimal.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the important behavioral consequence follows. It is appropriately sized and 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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and consequence. The only minor gap is the absence of any clarification about the token parameter, but the overall tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 only 50% (handle has a description, token does not). The description adds no parameter details, leaving the token parameter completely unexplained. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Remove a block.' It directly contrasts with the sibling block_agent and clarifies the effect of remaining disconnected, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (to remove a block) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like block_agent or request_connect, nor does it state when not to use it. The behavioral note about staying disconnected hints at follow-up actions but leaves the decision to the agent.

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