ralph.block_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a precondition ('active task') and the action's effect ('move into Blocked section'), but it does not mention side effects such as status changes, whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or what happens if the task is already blocked.

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 one sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and destination. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the terse phrasing leaves some semantic gaps that are penalized elsewhere.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool reliably. It omits how the parameters map to the action, what the required inputs actually mean, and the practical consequences of the operation beyond the literal move.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds a small semantic clue by saying 'with a short reason,' which maps loosely to the 'reason' parameter, but it does not explain what 'text' refers to, when 'taskId' is needed, or how the task is identified or selected.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and identifies both the resource ('active task') and the destination ('dedicated Blocked section'), so the core purpose is clear. It distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling 'unblock_task' through the 'Blocked' terminology, though it does not explicitly name any 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 phrase 'active task' implies the intended use case: block tasks that are currently active. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool, how it relates to 'set_task_status', or when to prefer 'unblock_task' instead, leaving usage largely inferred.

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