block_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the required permission scope and the mutation endpoint, which is genuinely useful. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects blocking has on the contact (e.g., messaging/consent), or whether the change is reversible.

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?

It is short and front-loaded: purpose first, then permission, then endpoint. The trailing 'Tags: Contacts' line is API-doc filler that adds no decision value, keeping it from a 5.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth scope, and endpoint. It is still missing the behavioral consequences of blocking, which matter for an agent deciding to invoke a state-changing contact operation.

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 schema already explains that `enabled=false` blocks and `true` unblocks, so the description adds nothing beyond it. The path template in the description loosely maps `id` to a path parameter, but the schema already labels it as such, making this a baseline case.

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 a specific verb pair and resource ('Block or Unblock Contact') plus the concrete endpoint PUT /api/v1/contacts/{id}/block, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like delete_contact or update_contact by virtue of the 'block' verb, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the stated prerequisite ('Requires the `contacts:block` permission'). There is no guidance on when to choose this over delete_contact/update_contact, nor any warning about when blocking is inappropriate.

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