Block task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions retaining the lease and hints at heartbeats or release, but it does not explain side effects such as state changes, whether the blocking dependency is recorded in a persistent way, or any implications for the worker or task. This is insufficient for a tool that mutates task state.

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 text is extremely brief—two sentences with no fluff—which is positive for conciseness. However, the wording is cryptic and fails to convey essential information clearly. It reads more like a placeholder than a well-structured explanation, so it does not earn a high score despite its 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?

For a tool with 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning or purpose of the parameters, the expected response, or any prerequisites. This leaves an agent without enough context to safely or correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the six required parameters (taskId, workerId, leaseToken, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey, reason). The schema provides only basic types and constraints; the tool's description adds zero semantic meaning about how these parameters are used or their roles in the blocking action.

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 it 'Record a blocking dependency while retaining the lease,' which indicates a specific action distinct from releasing or failing a task. However, the phrase 'Continue heartbeats or release the task' is ambiguous, making it unclear whether the tool itself executes those actions or offers instructions. This muddies the primary purpose.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_release or task_fail. The mention of 'retaining the lease' implies a scenario where the lease must be kept, but there is no direct instruction about prerequisites or conditions that necessitate this tool.

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