block_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Block a user' implies a destructive/mutative action but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's reversible (though 'unblock_user' exists as sibling), rate limits, or what the output contains. It lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 at three words, front-loading the core action with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 user management tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the mutation's impact, prerequisites, or output structure, leaving significant gaps despite the output schema potentially covering return values.

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 doesn't mention the 'user_id' parameter at all, providing no semantic context beyond what the bare schema shows. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description at least implies a user target, aligning with the parameter's purpose.

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 'Block a user' clearly states the action (block) and target (user), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'mute_user' by specifying blocking rather than muting, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'unblock_user' beyond the verb direction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when blocking is appropriate versus muting, hiding, or other user management actions, nor does it reference the sibling 'unblock_user' for reversal. Usage context is entirely implied from the verb alone.

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