Block an account

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the block is visible to the target, severs follows in both directions, hides posts, and is only partially reversible since follows do not come back. It also reinforces the mandatory confirm flag. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes unique value: the relationship effects, the reversibility caveat, and the confirmation requirement. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side effects, reversibility limits, and call precondition (confirm=true). The actor format and account default are already in the schema. Nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool is missing.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the confirm flag's requirement. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that confirm must be true. The schema carries the semantic burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Block an account.' It then details the consequences (removes any follow either way, hides your posts), which clearly distinguishes it from related tools like mute_account. It also names unblock_account as the reversal counterpart, making scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it severs the relationship, hides posts, is visible to the target, and is reversible only partially via unblock_account. It also explicitly notes the confirm requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name mute_account as a less severe alternative, so it stops short of full guidance.

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