add_github_project_blocked_by

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

Goes well beyond annotations by naming required scopes (project.write, item.relationship.write), the global write gate, and the re-read/audit behavior including no_change persistence. This adds substantial context beyond the idempotent/destructive hints, and the no_change/audit note is consistent with idempotentHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the core action and direction, then layers constraints and behavioral notes with zero filler. Every sentence (scope requirements, audit behavior, retry guidance) earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and four required params, it covers auth, preconditions, idempotency, and audit behavior adequately. The main gap is that individual parameters (owner, number, item IDs) are not explained, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies source/target semantics via the direction statement, but leaves owner and number (the project identifiers) unaddressed; they are only implied by 'same authorized Project'. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (make/create) and resource (blocked_by relationship) and disambiguates the direction upfront: 'source blocked by target: target blocks source.' This lets an agent distinguish it from remove_github_project_blocked_by and get_blockers without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('Both Issue items must belong to the same authorized Project', 'Single relationship only') and an operational exclusion ('Do not retry failures automatically'). It does not explicitly name the remove_ sibling as the inverse alternative, but the direction note effectively routes usage.

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