ddflow_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does clarify the state transition and rationale ('a blocked item states its reason'). Still, it does not say whether the claim is released, whether blocking is reversible, how the lease is affected, or what the tool returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by a crisp rationale. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 definition is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, and it explains the purpose and reason format well. However, it omits the practical consequences of blocking (e.g., relation to claim/lease, reversibility, response), which the description itself draws attention to by mentioning lease expiration.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by giving concrete examples of what 'reason' should contain ('a missing decision, an upstream outage, a question for the operator'). This helps the agent populate the required 'reason' parameter accurately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an item blocked on something outside the queue'. It also distinguishes this from the 'claimed' state, which is a key sibling alternative, so an agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

It gives clear decision context: use when blocked on something external like 'a missing decision, an upstream outage, a question for the operator'. It also implies when not to use it: rather than silently leaving an item claimed. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or list additional exclusion conditions.

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