update_card_blocker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates a blocker's reason or blocking card, but does not disclose whether the update is incremental or a full replacement, what happens if both fields are provided, whether the blocker must exist, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is thin and leaves key behaviors ambiguous.

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 action and scope. There is no redundancy or extra fluff — every word earns its place. It communicates the core behavior clearly in minimal length.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It states what it does, but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or side effects. Given the relative simplicity of the update operation, this is acceptable, but a more thorough description would include expectations about the outcome.

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 the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal value by framing the two optional fields (reason and blocker_card_id) as the 'reason or blocking card' being updated, tying them to the tool's purpose. This is slightly helpful but does not go beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

The description states a clear action ('Update') on a specific resource ('card blocker') and specifies the two attributes that can be modified (reason or blocking card). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like block_card and unblock_card, which have different purposes. The purpose is unambiguous and sufficiently specific.

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 description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It does not mention, for example, that this should be used only when a blocker already exists, or that block_card is for creating blockers. There is no guidance on context, making it harder for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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