task_block

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing the full lifecycle: the block persists until the human answers in Reado, answering reopens the task with a fresh attempt count, and blocking again replaces the reason. It also names the returned fields (id, state, reason) where no output schema exists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then lifecycle then return shape, with no filler. Every clause carries distinct information: trigger, persistence/reopen semantics, reason-replacement behavior, and response fields.

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 output schema, the description supplies the return contract (id, state, reason) and the state-transition semantics an agent needs before invoking. Annotations already cover the safety/idempotency profile, so nothing material is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, including that 'reason' is written for the human answering. The description restates 'your reason' without adding format, length, or content guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Block a task') and pins the exact triggering condition ('you cannot finish without the human — a decision, a credential or context you don't have'). That condition implicitly separates it from task_done and task_fail, though neither sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context via three concrete triggers (decision, credential, missing context). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. when blocking is inappropriate versus failing the task with task_fail, leaving that boundary to inference.

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