qui_add_cross_seed_blocklist_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, implying a mutation, but doesn't state what the operation does, whether it's idempotent, what errors may occur, or what response shape to expect.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the endpoint and then explains argument structure. It is concise and without fluff, though this brevity sacrifices semantic richness.

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 the presence of an output schema (which explains returns), the description lacks endpoint-specific details. It doesn't specify what data to include in the JSON body or query parameters, which is critical for an add operation. The generic parameter-passing explanation alone is insufficient to invoke this tool 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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains that arguments can contain path variables directly, a params object for query values, and a body object for JSON, which adds useful structural guidance. However, it doesn't list the specific path variables, query parameters, or body fields required for this endpoint, leaving the actual payload unspecified.

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 identifies the exact endpoint and HTTP method (POST /cross-seed/blocklist/), and the tool name plus sibling context (list/delete) clearly indicate an 'add' operation. However, the description itself doesn't explicitly state the semantic action of adding an entry; it only says to call the endpoint, which is a minor gap.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., list or delete), prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool should be used, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name and sibling tools.

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