huddo_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: blocking is private to the caller and blocked messages render as 'A blocked message.' It omits persistence, whether the blocked member is notified, and any permission requirements, so meaningful gaps remain 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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears in the first clause, followed by the rendering effect and parameter notes. No sentence is wasted, though the parameter hints could be folded more tightly.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key parameter default, but says nothing about persistence, reversibility, or return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, with 'as' and 'room' already documented and 'blocked' documented in the schema. The description usefully supplies the missing 'member' semantics (slug or display name), so it compensates for the one undocumented parameter but adds little beyond the schema otherwise.

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 pair (block/unblock) and resource (member), plus the scope qualifier 'for yourself (private),' which distinguishes it from admin-style actions like huddo_kick. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

Usage is implied by the block/unblock semantics and the note that 'blocked=false unblocks,' which tells the agent how to invert the operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as huddo_kick, leaving the agent to infer the private-vs-room distinction.

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