Block a D1Jiema phone number to permanently disable its account. Set confirm=true explicitly because this action is irreversible.
Block a D1Jiema phone. This is irreversible account state; set confirm=true explicitly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does the most important part: it declares the state change irreversible and requires confirm=true to be set explicitly. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, but the destructive profile is well disclosed.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the critical irreversible/confirm warning is front-loaded right after the action statement.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For an irreversible mutation with no annotations, the description covers the essential risk and the confirm guard, though it lacks prerequisites such as required permissions or account state.
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 meaningfully clarifies confirm (must be explicit, guards an irreversible action) but says nothing about the required phone parameter's format or expected value, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 and resource ("Block a D1Jiema phone"), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like d1jiema_settings_read or d1jiema_balance. However, it never names d1jiema_release, the obvious inverse operation, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference any alternative. An agent wanting to undo or reverse a block gets no pointer to d1jiema_release or any other tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.