Block Finding

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals that the tool performs a 'block via accept-risk' and that dryRun defaults true. It does not mention whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the finding after blocking, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, front-loading the core action 'Block via accept-risk'. However, it omits important detail that could be expected for a tool with four parameters and no output schema, but it earns points for being terse and to the point.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of blocking, any required context (e.g., user permissions), or how dryRun impacts behavior. The tool's purpose is hinted but not fully described for safe and correct use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the dryRun parameter, stating it defaults to true. The other three parameters (findingId, notes, reason) receive no explanation, meaning the agent lacks context on how to use them beyond what the schema types imply.

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 states 'Block via accept-risk', clearly indicating the tool blocks a finding through accept-risk mechanism. It mentions 'fix unavailable', which provides context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like armorcode_accept_risk, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

The phrase 'fix unavailable' suggests a condition for use (when fix is not possible), and 'dryRun defaults true' implies a testing mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_risk or mitigate, nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects.

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