taskguard_add_blocker

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool adds a blocker but does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or what happens after creation (e.g., impact on goal status). This lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about consequences.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information. It is concise and directly states the usage context, though it could be slightly expanded with parameter guidance without losing brevity.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It only covers 'when to use' but omits input details, output expectations, and behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (sessionId, description, status, resolution) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names and schema constraints. For example, 'sessionId' could be ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: 'Call this when progress is blocked by missing input, failing dependencies, permissions, unclear requirements, or external failures.' This clearly identifies the action (adding a blocker) and the specific scenarios, distinguishing it from siblings like taskguard_update_blocker or taskguard_check_scope_drift.

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 clear examples of when to use the tool (blocked by missing input, etc.), providing good context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like taskguard_update_blocker for updating an existing blocker.

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