bulk_blocklist_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and meets it: it flag the destructive scope requirement, the compound two-part side effect, the non-clean reversal path (restore_target plus manual blocklist removal), the missing-tool limitation, and the confirm=True safety gate. This is rich behavioral disclosure an agent needs before mutating data.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then layers caveats in dependency order. It is dense with qualifiers (exact match, conservative destructive scope, reversal path, confirm gate), but every clause earns its place for a compound destructive action; it reads as appropriately compact rather than padded.

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 compound destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does, how to confirm, why it's destructive, how reversal works, and what tools don't exist. No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 for the critical confirm parameter — 'Set confirm=True to actually perform this' explains the safety-gating boolean clearly. target_ids semantics are implied by the action description (the targets whose domains get blocklisted and archived), which adds value beyond the bare 'Target Ids' schema title.

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?

States a precise compound action — blocklist each target's domain AND archive the target — with exact-match semantics spelled out ('future Discovery runs won't re-add it'). It clearly distinguishes itself from plain archiving by name, so an agent can separate it from bulk_archive_targets and bulk_delete_targets without opening either 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?

Provides a clear decision context by contrasting with 'plain archiving' and disclosing that no blocklist-management tool exists for reversal, which tells the agent this is the permanent alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming the sibling tool directly (bulk_archive_targets), but the trade-off framing gives enough selection guidance.

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