block_ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that the block happens at the Hostkey network level and mentions the optional four_hours auto-unblock behavior in the schema, but the description itself does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or confirmation requirements beyond the schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a practical use case. No wasted words.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the effect of 'confirm', the four_hours option, or what happens after blocking (e.g., whether unblocking requires a separate call). The sibling 'unblock_ip' exists, but the description does not reference it.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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), a resource (IP-address on server at Hostkey network level), and a use case (abuse requests). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling 'unblock_ip', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 context ('Полезно для abuse-запросов' = useful for abuse requests), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'unblock_ip' or firewall-level blocking.

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