blacklist_users

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not explain consequences of blacklisting, reversibility, required permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant wording. It is very concise, though so terse that it leaves some behavioral and contextual details unstated.

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 simple one-parameter mutating tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and target. However, it lacks any mention of batch limits, side effects, how it relates to list_blacklist/unblacklist_users, or error handling, so an agent has to infer important operational context.

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 only shows openid_list as an array of strings with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by implying that the openid_list contains users to be blacklisted, which is useful. However, it does not specify batch size limits, whether invalid openids are ignored, or other constraints on the parameter.

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 '批量拉黑用户' (batch blacklist users) states a specific verb and resource, and the 'batch' qualifier clarifies that multiple users are targeted at once. It is essentially a slight restatement of the tool name, but it is clear enough that an agent can tell it performs blacklisting rather than listing or unblacklisting.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_blacklist or unblacklist_users. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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