blockers_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses default trigger_type behavior, the blocked_by conditional requirement, and UTC normalization. However, it does not describe side effects beyond 'defer', reversibility, auth requirements, or failure behavior.

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 lead sentence is direct and the argument list is tight and scannable. Each line conveys necessary information without filler or repetition.

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?

All five parameters and their defaulting rules are covered, and an output schema exists so return details need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool there is no explicit statement of post-conditions or reversibility, leaving slight incompleteness.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter gets meaningful semantics, examples, default behavior, conditional requirements, and format normalization.

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: 'Defer an item by adding a blocker.' This makes the primary function clear and separates it from blocker query/check/resolve siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like blockers_resolve or milestone_defer. The description gives parameter logic but no context for choosing this tool or exclusions.

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