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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the whole call is rejected if any id in an 'add' batch is invalid, which is critical for an agent to know before batching.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the operation stated first and the batch constraint second. Nothing is buried or repeated unnecessarily.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations plus a fully documented schema cover the essentials, including the destructive nature and atomic failure mode. It stops short of describing the success return shape or whether removals are reversible, but those are minor given the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account_code, piece_relative_id, action, and the add/remove semantics of blocker_relative_ids in detail. The description restates the atomicity rule but adds no syntax, format, or identifier meaning beyond 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 names a specific verb pair (add/remove) and resource (blocked_by links on a piece), which is more precise than the tool name alone. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling BlockTaskTool, which plausibly overlaps in intent, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the add/remove action enum, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as BlockTaskTool or UpdatePieceTool. The batch-failure note hints at when the tool is appropriate for bulk edits but never states it as guidance.

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