Set a remote's block state

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

The description asserts "idempotency=idempotent-write," which directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false. An agent reasoning about safe retries would be actively misled by this conflict, which is the rubric's contradiction case despite the otherwise rich behavioral detail (mutation warning, engine support matrix, both-direction pre-validation).

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?

Front-loaded with the critical mutation warning and the core action, then metadata. It is dense but mostly earns its place; the only waste is mild redundancy between the opening "WRITES LIVE GAME STATE" and the later "Safety: MUTATING; writes live game/client state."

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, reversibility, prerequisites, success artifact (operation-receipt), verification step (assert-state), and failure handling. An agent has everything needed to call and validate it, aside from the idempotency inconsistency noted above.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by adding engine-dependent semantics not in the schema: Ketamine's support for outgoing remotes and incoming RemoteFunction callbacks, the unsupported incoming-RemoteEvent case, and the guarantee that Both-direction requests are validated before any state change.

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 first words name a specific verb and resource ("Reversibly sets the selected spy's block state") and scope it to an observed remoteId or remotePath in a chosen direction. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like monitor-remote, ignore-remote, and fire-remote, which are the other remote-spy manipulation tools.

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 states prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval), the undo path (blocked=false), and a when-NOT condition (incoming RemoteEvent blocking returns an explicit unsupported error). It does not name an alternative sibling for filtering rather than blocking, so it falls short of an explicit alternative-routing statement.

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