task_block

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes status from in_progress to blocked, which implies it is a write operation. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or whether the action is reversible.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes all key elements: the action, optional dependency, required reason, and state transition. No wasted words.

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 low-complexity tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on preconditions (e.g., task must be in_progress), error handling, or return values, which would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 description explains the 'on' parameter as an optional task ID to block on, and the 'reason' parameter as a required reason. However, the required 'task_id' parameter is not explicitly described. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but misses the chance to detail constraints like positive integer or max length.

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 tool marks a task blocked, specifying the state transition from in_progress to blocked. It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_start or task_resolve by indicating this is a blocking action, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus other status-change tools (task_start, task_resolve, etc.). The description mentions optional blocking on another task but provides no context on prerequisites, such as the task needing to be in_progress first.

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