Block an account

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: the block is visible to the target, removes follows in both directions, hides posts, is reversible while the follows do not return, and requires confirmation. This goes well beyond the structured metadata, fully disclosing side effects and reversibility.

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?

Four short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most important effects, then the confirmation caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct value.

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 description explains the core behavior, side effects, reversibility, and confirmation requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to execute the tool. The only notable gap is the lack of detail on the 'acct' parameter format, and since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the call achieves—which it does well.

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 67% because the required 'acct' parameter has no description. The tool description does not clarify what format 'acct' should take, leaving that gap unaddressed. It does reinforce the meaning of 'confirm' via the 'Needs confirm: true' note, but does not add meaning for the undocumented parameter, so a baseline score applies.

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 verb and resource ('Block an account') and goes beyond the title by enumerating exact consequences: visibility to the target, removal of follows in both directions, and hiding of posts. This differentiates the action from siblings like mute_account or block_domain by describing the precise behavioral effect.

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 the appropriate use case—when you want to block and hide your posts from an account—and clearly signals the confirmation requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like mute_account or unblock_account, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool, leaving selection partially to inference.

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