set_consumer_denylist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that active denylisting bypasses the Consumer Denylist Gate, avoids LLM/Whisper and quota usage, and applies across all tenant agents. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the side effects. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core add/remove action, followed by the relevant consequences. Every clause adds meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

The schema and description together cover required parameters, conditional behavior, scope, and side effects. There is no output schema, but the description still gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly; only a minor gap exists around what the response returns, which is not critical for this mutation tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, including conditional usage rules for reason and message (only when blocked=true). The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource: it adds or removes a consumer from the tenant's universal denylist via the do_not_contact flag. It also makes the scope explicit ('Cross-agent — bloqueia em TODOS os agentes do tenant') and clarifies the functional consequence, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from consumer session or profile tools.

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 context for when this tool applies: blocking a consumer from all tenant agents and bypassing the Consumer Denylist Gate without LLM/Whisper or quota consumption. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but no sibling tool directly competes with this denylist action, so the context is sufficient.

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