Block a user

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

Annotations already show this is a mutating, reversible, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the scope ('the authenticated account'), the recorded optional reason, and the fact that blocking is reversible with repovive_unblock_user. This goes beyond what the annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 carry the essential information with no filler: the effect, the optional reason, and the reversal path. The most important scoping detail ('can no longer direct-message the authenticated account') appears immediately, making the description easy to scan.

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 with a complete input schema, an output schema, and relevant annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the action does, who it affects, and how to undo it, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both user_id and reason clearly. The description restates the optional-reason idea but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Block a user'), the exact target resource, and the precise effect: the blocked user can no longer direct-message the authenticated account. It also mentions the optional reason and explicitly names the reversal tool, distinguishing it from repovive_unblock_user and repovive_list_blocked_users.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when the goal is to stop a user from sending direct messages to the authenticated account. It also names the relevant alternative for undoing the action (repovive_unblock_user), though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions.

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