blocker.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does well: it discloses non-idempotent behavior (every call creates a new blocker), the emitted event, the returned status, and the lifecycle persistence across handoffs. It omits auth/permission requirements, but for a session-scoped record tool those are likely uniform across siblings.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the idempotency warning, then the return value, then the lifecycle. Each sentence carries distinct, useful information with no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned ('the blocker JSON with status open') and how long it persists. With a single fully-documented parameter and clear side-effect disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'description' as 'What is blocked and what would unblock it.' The description adds concrete examples (failing dependency, missing credential, question for the user) that give the agent a sense of appropriate granularity.

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 ('Record') and resource ('open blocker in the current session'), plus the side effect ('log a blocker.created event'). This clearly distinguishes it from blocker.list and blocker.resolve in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly says 'Every call creates a new blocker, so check blocker.list with open_only=true first,' naming the alternative tool, its parameter, and the condition that selects it. The lifecycle note about blocker.resolve further clarifies when this tool's effect ends.

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