hearthsmith_tasks_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavioral outcome ('the pet stops nagging'), but it does not explain whether blocking is reversible, how it interacts with other task states, or what side effects occur beyond the nagging 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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It earns a high score for structure, though it sacrifices informative content for 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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, so the missing return-value documentation is not a concern. However, the description does not explain how blocking differs from marking done or snoozing, nor what 'blocked' implies for future task behavior. It is minimally viable for invocation but not fully contextual.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not. task_id is inferable from its name and required status, but the purpose and effect of the optional 'reason' parameter are entirely unexplained.

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 specific action ('Mark a task blocked') and a concrete consequence ('the pet stops nagging about it'). It clearly identifies the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like done or snooze, which also affect nagging behavior.

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 given about when to use block versus alternatives such as hearthsmith_tasks_done or hearthsmith_tasks_snooze. The parenthetical describes the effect but leaves the decision entirely to inference.

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