add_issue_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains the direction of the block relationship, the effect on `dep_index`, the same-repo defaults, and the cross-repo configuration requirement. It stops short of noting idempotency, authentication, or error cases, but the core side effects are clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then moves through role definition, defaults/prerequisites, and return value. Each sentence contributes distinct information, with no filler or redundant prose.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation details: direction, defaults, the cross-repo prerequisite, and the return value. It could add a note about duplicate blocks or comparative guidance with sibling tools, but the core usage is well covered.

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 baseline is 3; the prose mostly restates or reinforces what the schema already says about `index`, `dep_index`, `dep_repo`, and `dep_owner`. It adds a concise overview of the relationship but no genuinely new per-parameter meaning.

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 leads with "Make an issue block another issue," clearly stating the operation, resource, and relationship. It then defines the blocking direction (`index` is the blocker; `dep_index` becomes blocked) and notes the return value, which distinguishes it from sibling dependency/block tools.

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?

It supplies useful usage context—default repository/owner behavior and the `AllowCrossRepositoryDependencies` prerequisite—but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as `add_issue_dependency`, `remove_issue_block`, or `check_issue_blocked`. The intended use is implied by the description rather than contrasted with related tools.

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