marketplace_block_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the core action and ownership requirement but omits side effects, reversibility (via unblock), default permanent duration, and that severity can be set. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 that communicates the essential function without redundancy. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only one line. It does not explain return values, default block duration, how to reverse a block, or error conditions. This is inadequate for an action that modifies marketplace access.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only restates 'your tool' and 'tool owner' concepts already present in the parameter names, adding no new semantic detail 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 the specific verb 'Block' with a clear object ('a user address') and purpose ('accessing your tool'), and adds the ownership restriction. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like marketplace_unblock_user and marketplace_allowlist_user.

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?

It provides the prerequisite that only the tool owner can call it, but does not mention when to use this over unblocking or allowlisting, nor does it reference alternative tools. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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