Block / unblock a user

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-visibility profile is already covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the concrete effect ('cannot message you or see your profile') and the fact that 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then effect, then reversal. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the action, effect, and reversibility. The only meaningful gap is the accepted format for identifying the user.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the 'unblock' flag clearly (true reverses the block), which the bare boolean schema does not, but it never clarifies the 'user' parameter format (username vs. ID) despite that being the required argument.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Block or unblock a user') and clarifies the toggle direction. It is inherently distinguishable from siblings like telegram_kick_member or telegram_delete_contacts, though it does not explicitly name any alternative to contrast against.

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?

Usage is implied by the reversal instruction ('Pass unblock=true to reverse it'), which gives operational context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to block versus kicking a member or deleting a contact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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