workflow_report_blocker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/report operation but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, state changes to the ticket, or error behavior. 'Typed reason and bounded description' describes inputs, not behavior.

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 no filler. Every phrase adds meaning about the action and its required inputs.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what reporting a blocker does to the ticket, who can do it, or what result to expect.

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 compensate. It semantically identifies all three required parameters: a ticket target, a typed blocker reason, and a bounded description. However, it does not explain the enum values or length limits, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear verb ('Report') and resource ('a blocker against a ticket'), plus the key input types ('typed reason and bounded description'). It does not distinguish this tool from any of the many sibling workflow_* tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Report a blocker against a ticket'; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternatives among siblings like workflow_mark_context_stale or workflow_request_approval.

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