Block outgoing RakNet packets by criteria

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: what blocking actually does to the game ('break the game, freeze replication, or disconnect the client'), the required library and approval prerequisites, mutation classification, and a verification path (assert-state). The only divergence is the 'idempotency=idempotent-write' taxonomy tag against idempotentHint=false, which reads as metadata shorthand rather than a behavioral contradiction of the tool's mutating/destructive profile.

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 destructive warning and core mechanism are front-loaded, then criteria, action semantics, prerequisite, signature, and a metadata tail (phase/cost/idempotency/verify/failure). Slightly dense and run-on, but every clause carries actionable information and nothing important is buried.

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 mutating, hook-installing tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, safety consequences, matching semantics, action lifecycle (start/stop), and post-call verification ('Produces: operation-receipt', 'Verify with: assert-state'), plus a failure fallback to tool-schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the per-parameter docs already exist and baseline is 3. The description adds the parameter-interaction semantics the schema omits: with neither minSize nor containsHex set, every outgoing packet is blocked, which is the single most important parameter-level fact for a correct call, plus an explicit signature line.

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 ('installs a RakNet send hook that DROPS matching outgoing packets') and names the exact mechanism and scope, so it is immediately distinguishable from siblings like block-remote, block-function, send-packet, or packet-spy. The title and first sentence align without redundancy.

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 strong operating context: the matching rule (Size >= minSize and/or payload contains containsHex), the dangerous no-criteria default, and the advice to 'use narrow criteria and stop promptly'. It also lists prerequisites (active-client, explicit-mutation-approval, raknet library) and phase/cost. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., packet-spy for observation), so it falls just short of a 5.

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