huddo_block

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the privacy scope (affects only the caller's view) and the observable effect (a blocked member's messages render as "A blocked message"). It stops short of covering permissions, whether the other party is notified, or persistence across sessions.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the action and privacy scope. The trailing parameter notes duplicate the schema and could be dropped, which keeps it from a 5.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the operation does, its scope, and the reversal path. Remaining gaps (permissions, notification behavior, whether blocking is per-room or global) are minor but real.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description's "member = slug or display name; blocked=false unblocks" merely restates the schema text rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), scoped as "for yourself (private)" which implicitly distinguishes it from a room-wide moderation action like huddo_kick. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description (block a member for your own view; set blocked=false to undo it), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over huddo_kick or other member tools, nor any stated preconditions.

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