block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It never says what blocking actually does (suppress messages? hide presence? remove contact?), whether it is reversible, or what permissions it requires — only that a mutation of some kind occurs.

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 phrase is short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is room for a clause on target selection or effect without bloat.

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 state-changing moderation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: how the target is determined (implicit from context?), side effects, and reversibility. An agent could not confidently invoke this without outside knowledge.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so per the baseline for parameterless tools the description has nothing to compensate for. It is scored at the standard baseline, not for any added value.

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?

"Block a user" states a recognizable verb and resource, so the general intent is graspable. But it is indistinguishable from sibling tools ban, kick, and unblock, and it gives no hint how the target user is identified given a zero-parameter schema. That ambiguity keeps it at minimum-viable rather than clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from ban/kick. The agent is left to guess at the selection criteria among several similar moderation tools.

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