Mark a card as waiting on another

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses blocked-state visibility, cross-board behavior, idempotency, validation failures for self-links and cycles, where links appear in get_card/get_board, and that the user can undo.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers relevant constraints in a compact sequence. Each sentence adds distinct operational value, including idempotency, cycle rejection, result visibility, and undo.

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 two required string parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call the tool correctly. It covers validation rules, link visibility, cross-board behavior, idempotency, and reversibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: cardId is the waiting card and blockerId is the card it waits on. It further clarifies that identical ids are rejected and that blockerId must not already depend on cardId.

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: it records a 'blocked by' link between two cards. It clearly distinguishes this from generic card updates and implies the inverse of the sibling remove_blocker tool. An agent can immediately understand the action without opening the schema.

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 explains the effect of adding a blocker, cross-board support, idempotency, and several rejection conditions. It does not explicitly name remove_blocker as the alternative for unblocking, but the usage context is otherwise clear and actionable.

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