bsky_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement ('要認証') which is valuable context, but fails to describe other critical behavioral aspects: what 'blocking' actually does (e.g., hides content, prevents interactions), whether the action is reversible (though bsky_unblock exists as sibling), rate limits, permissions needed beyond authentication, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that states the core action and authentication requirement. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, for a mutation tool with behavioral implications, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than representing efficient communication.

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 mutation tool (blocking is clearly a write operation) with no annotations, 2 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe return values), the description fails to address: what blocking entails behaviorally, parameter meanings, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like bsky_unblock. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for safe, informed use.

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%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It mentions '指定DID' (specified DID) which aligns with the required 'subject_did' parameter, but doesn't explain what a DID is, format requirements, or how to obtain it. The optional 'acting_handle' parameter receives no mention at all. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 clearly states the action ('ブロックします' - blocks) and target resource ('指定DID' - specified DID), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like bsky_unblock (inverse action) and bsky_mute (different moderation action). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other blocking-related tools since none exist in the sibling list.

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 description implies usage context through '要認証' (requires authentication), suggesting this tool should be used when authenticated. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like bsky_mute (which appears to be a different moderation action) or bsky_unblock (the inverse operation). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite conditions beyond authentication are mentioned.

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