task_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says a status is set. It omits whether this is reversible, whether prior status matters, whether the reason is persisted or surfaced later, and what the call returns for a mutation.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leans toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

A state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters needs more: prerequisites, reversibility, and response shape are all absent. As written an agent cannot call it confidently beyond guessing.

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% for both parameters. The description hints that 'reason' is a free-text justification, but 'id' is never explained (task id from task_create/task_get?) and no format or constraint guidance is added 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?

States a specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('task status') and the resulting state ('blocked'), with the reason parameter named. An agent can distinguish it from task_start/task_done by the target status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: it doesn't say whether the task must already be started, whether blocking replaces task_done, or when blocked is preferable to just leaving the task open. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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