Block or unblock an agent for the organisation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that it modifies a live tenant, requires confirm: true, needs specific permissions (CopilotPackages.ReadWrite.All), runs against Graph beta, requires a license, is global-cloud only, and is 'unverified against a live tenant'. This is exceptionally transparent about side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise but information-dense, front-loading the purpose before covering scope, requirements, and limitations. Every sentence contributes useful detail without padding, though it could be slightly trimmed for the permission/licensing clauses.

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 governance mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and the confirm flag. It doesn't describe the response format, but that's less critical for a mutation. The honesty about being 'unverified against a live tenant' adds completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds some context, notably that 'confirm' is required for actual changes and that 'id' comes from cs_list_org_agents, but these are minor additions beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('Block an agent... or lift an existing block'), identifies the resource (agent for the organisation), and distinguishes it from deployment actions ('it does not unpublish or delete the agent'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cs_list_org_agents or cs_reassign_org_agent.

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?

It clearly explains the governance scope ('across the whole tenant'), contrasts with deployment, and notes it affects all users at once. It also mentions the confirm requirement and permissions. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, the context makes its intended use clear.

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