memoryos_block_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully clarifies that the block applies to 'future memory operations' and is 'tenant-scoped,' but it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether existing memories are affected, what permissions are required, or what the response/error behavior is.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the core intent is immediately clear.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke it with full confidence. Missing context includes reversibility, side effects, whether repeated blocks are idempotent, and any prerequisites.

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 has only external_user_id with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'tenant-scoped user' but does not explain the expected format of external_user_id, where it comes from, or how it maps to the tenant scope. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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') with a specific resource ('a tenant-scoped user') and a clear effect ('from future memory operations'). This distinguishes it from the sibling memory CRUD, export, and consent tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memoryos_delete_memory, memoryos_export_user, or memoryos_create_consent_url. The intended use is implied but not stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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