block_restricted_youtube

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the blocking action and its scope, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing YouTube sessions are terminated, whether the block is persistent, whether special permissions are required, or what the response looks like). This is a significant gap for a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with the verb, object, and scope front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the operational core of the tool is fully described. The only minor gap is that the description does not explicitly mention how the operation relates to sibling tools (e.g., that unblock_restricted_youtube reverses it), though the sibling list itself implies this. This is a nearly complete definition for such a simple tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is complete by definition (schema_description_coverage is 100%). The description compensates for the lack of parameters by explicitly specifying the scope ('all Restricted devices'), which is exactly the kind of semantic detail an agent needs. Baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Block') and a specific target ('YouTube') plus a defined scope ('all Restricted devices'), making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'unblock_restricted_youtube' which reverses the operation.

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 implies a clear use case and therefore orients an agent toward when it would be relevant, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as block_client or unblock_restricted_youtube. There is no when/when-not language or mention of conditions that would make this the right tool.

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