fossa_block_package

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

The write requirement (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true) is disclosed, aligning with readOnlyHint=false. Idempotency is explicitly stated, matching idempotentHint=true. Additionally, it warns that the endpoint is undocumented and may change without notice, which is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then covers the write requirement, parameter details, idempotency, and API stability warning. Each sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. The information is front-loaded and logically ordered.

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 description covers all essential context: purpose, write prerequisites, parameter semantics, policy type constraints, reversibility, idempotency, and stability risk. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for a write operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: package_locator is defined as a versionless locator with examples, versions has clear semantics (omission vs. explicit list), and policy_ids are specified as numeric IDs of quality policies only. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type/title information.

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's purpose: 'Block a package by adding a blocked-dependency rule to one or more FOSSA quality policies.' It specifies the exact verb (block), the resource (package), and the mechanism (quality policy rule), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fossa_unblock_package.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it names fossa_unblock_package as the reversal tool, states that block rules cannot attach to licensing/security/SBOM policies, and explains the behavior of omitting vs. specifying versions. It also notes the FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true prerequisite, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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