todo_block

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 discloses the core behavior (blocking and cycle rejection) but omits other relevant behaviors such as whether it validates that the todos exist, whether it is idempotent, or how errors are surfaced. The cycle rejection is a useful behavioral note, but more transparency would be expected for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the cycle-rejection caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits potential edge cases and behaviors such as what happens when a blocker already exists, whether multiple blockers are allowed, or how errors are returned. While the output schema may cover return values, the description alone does not provide complete context for an agent to call the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description implicitly explains the roles of todo_id and blocker_id through the sentence 'todo_id cannot start until blocker_id completes', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explicitly describe the parameters or explain project_id beyond the schema's existing description. Given the low coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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: add a blocker between two todos, with a specific semantic ('todo_id cannot start until blocker_id completes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like todo_unblock by describing the operation and the cycle rejection, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., todo_unblock). It doesn't mention that it creates a dependency that can be removed, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for invocation. The usage context is implied only by the name and description, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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