x_block_set

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it severs follows bidirectionally, hides the account, is reversible, and lives in a destructive policy cell requiring confirmation. It also calls out the policy read-only disablement, which an agent needs to anticipate invocation failures.

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 compact and front-loaded: action and target first, then effects, then parameter formats, then policy considerations. Every sentence carries relevant information, though the policy cell note and read-only note overlap slightly in theme.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema documentation, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers behavior, authentication, parameter formats, reversibility, and policy restrictions. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that unblocking does not restore any follow relationship severed by the block, but this is not essential for selecting or invoking 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already document accepted user formats and the block/unblock enum. The tool description restates these in prose but adds no genuinely new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact operations ('block or unblock a user'), the target resource ('a user'), and the acting identity ('as the authenticated user'). It further differentiates from sibling relationship tools by stating concrete effects: blocking severs the follow relationship in both directions and hides the account.

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 intended use is clear: call this when the goal is to block or unblock a user, and the description adds a policy-based exclusion by noting it is disabled under 'read-only'. It does not explicitly contrast with x_mute_set or x_follow_set, but the textual description of blocking behavior makes the appropriate context clear enough.

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