create_users_by_id_block

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true obtainable and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., preventing interactions), required permissions, or response behavior. Since the description is responsible for supplementing annotations, this is a gap.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then endpoint, then args. Each line serves a clear function, and there is no fluff. The body guidance is slightly indirect but still efficient.

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?

The description adequately covers id and provides a discovery path for body fields via the GET/schema endpoints. With an output schema and annotations present, the tool is usable, but it lacks any note about side effects or when to choose this over related actions. It is acceptable but not fully self-contained.

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 id parameter is well described as 'the slug that identifies the user, or me for the authenticated user', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. The body parameter is described as a request payload with guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint, but no concrete fields are listed, leaving the agent to fetch schema elsewhere.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Block this user.' and includes the endpoint POST /users/{id}/block, making the verb and target unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_users_by_id_block, but the action itself is specific enough to avoid confusion in most cases.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention conditions for blocking, prerequisites, or the companion unblock operation (delete_users_by_id_block). An agent has to infer usage from the tool name and endpoint.

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