block_ip

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), and the description adds useful scope detail by specifying the block happens at the Hostkey network level rather than at the OS level. However, it does not disclose the consequences for traffic to the IP, reversibility via unblock_ip, or the temporary nature of blocking with four_hours, leaving the agent to infer the operational impact.

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 two tight sentences with no redundancy: the first states the action and scope, and the second gives the target use case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 potentially impactful network-blocking operation, the description is adequate but thin: it names the scope and use case, while the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety. Missing are the consequences of a block, how to reverse it (unblock_ip), and that four_hours makes it temporary — though these are partly discoverable via the sibling list and schema.

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%, with all five parameters already documented (id, ip, description, confirm, four_hours). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 verb ('Заблокировать' — block), the resource (IP address on a server), and the scope ('на уровне сети Hostkey' — at the Hostkey network level), and it names the underlying API method (net/block_ip). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unblock_ip (the reverse operation) and port_on/port_off (port-level control).

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 a clear use case ('Полезно для abuse-запросов' — useful for abuse requests), which signals to an agent when this tool is the right choice. It offers no explicit exclusions or alternative routing to siblings like unblock_ip or port_off, but the stated scenario provides solid contextual guidance.

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