Block an account

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds essential behavioral details: the action is visible to the target, it removes follows in both directions, hides posts, is reversible only via unblock_account but without restoring follows, and requires confirm=true. This fully discloses the real-world impact and meets the confirmation requirement without contradicting annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then packs behavioral details, reversibility caveat, and confirmation requirement into a tight, readable structure. Every sentence adds value.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with a confirmation parameter, the description covers all critical aspects: what happens, who sees it, reversibility, follow loss, and the confirm requirement. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameter details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 documents actor, account, and confirm. The description adds little parameter-specific guidance beyond restating that confirm must be true, which the schema already states. It does not explain additional nuances like the format of actor or how account selection defaults, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Block') and resource ('an account'), and elaborates the exact effects: visible to the target, severs the relationship both ways, removes follows, hides posts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mute_account (hidden, less severe) and unblock_account (reversal).

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 provides clear behavioral context for when to block: it severs the relationship and hides posts, implying a stronger action than muting. It also names the reversal path (unblock_account) and warns that follows do not return, which helps an agent decide if blocking is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with mute_account or list all alternative tools, so guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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