avito_block_conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that it 'modifies the blocking state' and acts on the connected account, but does not disclose reversibility (via unblock), auth requirements, or side effects beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is stated first and the disambiguation hint follows. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation whose annotations fully cover the safety profile and whose single parameter is schema-documented, the description is essentially sufficient. A brief mention of the unblock counterpart would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter (conversationId) documented directly in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail 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?

The description names a specific verb (bloque) and resource (conversation Avito) and scopes it to the connected account, which is enough to distinguish it from the inverse unblock sibling and from the read-only conversation tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands just under a full 5.

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 warning 'ne pas confondre avec une simple lecture' implies this is a state-changing operation rather than a fetch, giving some usage context. However, it never says when to block versus unblock (avito_unblock_conversation) or what prerequisites exist, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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