workflow_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool records the current phase as a resume target, which is important side effect. However, it doesn't describe what happens after blocking, how it affects other workflow operations, or any required permissions. Basic but not misleading.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by concise parameter explanations. No wasted words, though the parameter list could be inline instead of separate lines, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does and key parameters. However, it lacks guidance on side effects like whether blocking prevents other operations, and doesn't reference the output schema. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It briefly explains 'reason' and 'owner' meaningfully, and 'project_dir' as default to working directory. This is enough to understand the purpose, but doesn't provide detailed syntax or format for each parameter. Scores a 3 because it adds some 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 states the verb 'Block' and the resource 'the workflow', and adds a key detail: 'Records the current phase as the resume target.' This distinguishes it from siblings like workflow_close or workflow_transition, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 when to use (to block a workflow), but provides no exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like workflow_waive_guard or workflow_check. It gives the reason and owner but doesn't clarify when not to use this tool. Adequate but minimal guidance.

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