kadam_adv_block_sites

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

Goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by spelling out the consequence ('repeating the call changes nothing') and disclosing an all-or-nothing failure mode ('a campaign that does not belong to the account refuses the whole request'). It does not state permission requirements or whether any response is returned, but the atomicity and idempotency disclosure is meaningful 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scoping rule, then edge-case behavior. No filler; each sentence carries distinct operational information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with only an idempotency annotation and no output schema, the description covers scope, parameter sourcing, idempotency, and failure atomicity. Remaining gaps (permissions, return behavior) are minor.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it names the source of zone IDs (sites report, macrosId) and clarifies that campaignIds must enumerate every campaign affected. The blocked flag semantics are already in the schema, so no credit there.

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 pair (stop/resume buying traffic) and resource (sites/zones in given campaigns), and the per-campaign scoping distinguishes it from siblings like kadam_adv_update_site_bids or kadam_adv_toggle_autorule_slice_block. An agent can identify the operation and its granularity without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the key usage condition – blocking is per campaign, so every campaign must be listed, and zone IDs come from the sites report (macrosId). It gives clear context but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one.

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