vibemap_block_criterion

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

Annotations are neutral (no contradicting hints). Description adds the status transition detail but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or impact on linked data. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, first sentence states the action, second provides usage context. No superfluous text.

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 status-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and usage scenario. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., criterion must exist, current status check) and behavior on invalid inputs.

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 only 33% (only 'reason' has description). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Mark a criterion as blocked') and specifies the state transition ('any-active-status → blocked'). Differentiates from sibling 'vibemap_unblock_criterion'.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when external dependency, ambiguity, or environmental issue prevents progress.' Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context suggests sibling handles the reverse.

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