gatekeeper_block_project

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: a non-empty reason is required and a confirmation gate applies. It also explains the consequence ('gates their site/API'). No contradiction with annotations. Could go further by noting reversibility or side effects, but the key behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding new information: the action and effect, the required parameters, and the confirmation gate. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple mutation tool with two scalar parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, prerequisites, and confirmation behavior. However, it omits details like whether the action is reversible (via unblock), what happens to existing site access, or expected response. Given the low complexity and sibling context, it's adequate but not fully complete.

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 zero description coverage for the two parameters. The description only states that slug is required and reason must be non-empty; it does not explain what a slug is or how to obtain it, nor what the reason should contain. This is insufficient compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action ('block'), the resource ('Gatekeeper client project'), and the effect ('gates their site/API'). This is distinct from sibling tools like gatekeeper_unblock_project, gatekeeper_delete_project, and gatekeeper_update_project, so an agent can quickly identify what this tool does.

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?

Gives clear context: it is a manual block action requiring a slug and non-empty reason, with a confirmation gate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like gatekeeper_unblock_project for reversal. Still, the context is clear enough to infer its purpose relative to siblings.

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