block_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral effects. It mentions the action and the two ways to block, but doesn't explain side effects (e.g., whether the card becomes read-only), required permissions, or what happens on success. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and the two blocking modes. There is zero waste, and it reads clearly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description, the definition is incomplete. It doesn't clarify whether reason and blocker_card_id are mutually exclusive, whether blocking has lasting effects, or what the API returns. An agent calling this tool would lack crucial 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions. The description's mention of 'reason' and 'blocking card' maps to those fields but adds no new semantics beyond rephrasing. Per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb 'block' and the resource 'card', and specifies two ways to block (with a reason or by a blocking card). It is specific enough to distinguish from the unblock_card and list_card_blockers siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The clarity is good, if not perfect.

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 on when to use this tool versus related tools like update_card_blocker or unblock_card. The description simply states what it does without context for selection among alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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