block_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that multiple blockers exist and that the card remains blocked until all are resolved, and returns an id for unblocking. However, it does not mention failure cases, required permissions, or side effects. The transparency is adequate but not complete.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a brief behavioral paragraph, a clear Args list, and a return note. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return includes an 'id' needed for unblocking, which is sufficient. It covers all 4 parameters and the core behavior. It could mention that card_ref must reference an existing card, but overall it is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides an Args section with clear explanations: card_ref example ('ON-914'), reason as 'human-readable explanation', and flags for is_show_stopper and external with defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark a card as blocked with a reason') and the outcome ('Creates a blocker record on the card'). It also explains key behavior (multiple blockers, card remains blocked until all resolved), distinguishing it from siblings like unblock_card and list_blockers.

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 implies when to use (to block a card) and hints at the process (multiple blockers, need id to unblock). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to alternatives, but the context of siblings and the mention of unblock_card indirectly guide the agent.

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