block_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the action but not side effects, such as whether it changes status, appends to a blockers list, or triggers notifications. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, and free of redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasting words.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain prerequisites, effect on task status, and behavior around auto-resolution. It omits all of that. The description is adequate for a very simple tool but lacks depth for a 4-parameter mutation with required phase and project.

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%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'blockers list', aligning with the blockers parameter, but does not provide extra meaning for phase, project, or task_id beyond their schema descriptions.

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 ('Mark') plus resource ('task') and outcome ('as blocked with blockers list'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like complete_task or start_task by specifying the blocked state and blockers input.

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 context implies use when a task becomes blocked, but there is no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives like update_task_status. The usage guidance is implied by the verb 'blocked' rather than stated.

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