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 carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses confirm: true is required for a live change, the required permission (CopilotPackages.ReadWrite.All), the Graph beta / graph_write constraint, licence and global-cloud requirements, blast radius (affects every user at once), and that it is unverified. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then packs prerequisite and constraint facts densely. It runs long, but nearly every clause earns its place given the mutation and environmental prerequisites; a slightly tighter grouping of the licensing/cloud constraints would help.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, prerequisites, dry-run behavior, and limitations, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely unstated.

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 every parameter including id, blocked, confirm, and the auth/workspace defaults. The description reinforces the confirm: true requirement but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Block an agent ... or lift an existing block') and immediately scopes it as a tenant-wide governance action. It explicitly distinguishes itself from deployment/delete siblings by noting it 'does not unpublish or delete the agent', so an agent can tell it apart from cs_delete_agent or cs_quarantine_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?

Clear context: use this for whole-tenant governance blocking affecting every user, not deployment changes. It names the exclusion (not unpublish/delete) but does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (e.g. cs_delete_agent) that an agent might otherwise reach for, so it stops short of full when-not/routing guidance.

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