tg_block

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: blocking is reversible via unblock=true, and the default action is a block. The annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description complements them without contradiction.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the main action and ending with the parameter behavior. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple two-parameter tool this is mostly adequate, but there are gaps: no user identifier format, no mention of return value, and no information about what blocking actually affects. The annotations cover idempotency and destructive-ness, but the description alone leaves a few practical details unresolved.

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 compensate. It clarifies the meaning of the 'unblock' parameter and implicitly identifies 'user' as the block target, but it does not specify the required format for 'user' (e.g., ID, username), leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Block a user') and the resource, and also covers the unblock behavior. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., tg_moderate), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to block a user, and set unblock=true to undo the block. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the stated purpose is enough to guide basic selection.

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