Block users

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses reversibility ('Fully reversible with facebook_unblock_user'), explains the idempotentHint by noting re-blocking 'changes nothing, so this is safe to repeat', and warns about batch partial-failure ('Each PSID gets its own outcome'). It also states a non-obvious permission requirement ('PAGE token with pages_manage_engagement... and the MODERATE task') and the messaging side effect. All disclosures are consistent with the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and effect, reversibility and idempotency, per-item batch outcome, and auth requirements. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 write tool with 4 well-documented params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: effect, reversibility, repeat safety, partial-failure behavior, and auth. The per-PSID outcome statement hints at the response shape, while plan_id and apply semantics are already fully handled by the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the input schema already documents each parameter in detail, including apply's dry-run semantics, PSID clarification, plan_id expiry, and profile default. The description reinforces the batch limit and PSID concept but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Add up to 50 PSIDs to the Page's blocked list' — and states the functional effect: 'they can no longer comment on the Page or message it.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set by naming facebook_unblock_user as the reversal, making its role in the moderation family unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool applies (permanently preventing a user from commenting or messaging the Page) and names facebook_unblock_user as the relevant alternative for reversal. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use versus other moderation siblings such as facebook_hide_comment or facebook_delete_comment, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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