block_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the resolution logic (prefers WebACL, falls back to SG/NACL, recommends host layer), notes reversibility, and warns about danger. This provides good context, though it could mention required permissions or logging behavior.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a bullet list could improve readability slightly.

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?

Given the 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, resolution strategy, and safety warning. It is sufficiently complete for an IP blocking tool, though it does not describe the return format or confirmation behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about how 'site' is resolved but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'ip' or 'region'. The action enum is already documented.

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 that the tool blocks or unblocks an IP/CIDR, and specifies that it resolves the best layer (WebACL, SG/NACL, or host). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'ip_ban_set', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to block an IP at the appropriate layer) and includes a strong warning about danger and user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'ip_ban_set'.

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