github_users_block

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., what blocking entails), reversibility, authentication requirements, or the scope of the block. The agent is left with no insight into the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content. While not verbose, it could benefit from a bit more structure to improve comprehensibility without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what blocking a user means in this context (e.g., personal block vs. organization block), the effect on interactions, and any necessary permissions. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's role from this description alone.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description merely repeats 'username' without adding context or meaning. The description does not explain what the username represents (e.g., the user to block) or any constraints, so it adds no semantic value 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 'Block a user' is a clear verb+resource pairing that states the action and target. The tool name further clarifies it's at the user level, distinguishing from 'github_orgs_block_user'. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar user-level tools like 'github_users_unblock' or 'github_users_check_blocked'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., authenticated user blocking another), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description offers no usage direction.

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