resolve_blocked_mods

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose the mutating behavior: jars are placed into the instance's mods folder, which is a write the agent needs to know about. But it omits whether files are copied or moved, whether existing mods are overwritten, what happens when no match is found, and whether the instance must be stopped first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the three-step mechanism spelled out. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 no output schema, the description covers the mechanism but leaves out the outcome: what is returned (count of resolved mods, list of matched files) and the no-match case. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to discover by calling.

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 carry the burden and does partially: folder is the source of user-downloaded jars and instanceId selects the instance whose pending blocked list is matched. It still lacks path format expectations (absolute vs relative) and whether the folder is read-only or consumed.

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 delivers a precise verb chain (scan, sha1-match, place) against specific resources (folder, instance's pending blocked CurseForge files, mods folder). An agent can distinguish this from list_blocked_mods or install_mod by the sha1-matching mechanism, though siblings are not named explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus list_blocked_mods, install_mod, or list_mod_files_cf, and no preconditions are stated. It never says the folder must already contain user-downloaded jars or what state the instance should be in.

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