Block a public actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two main effects: content hidden in public topics/rooms and interaction blocked between both parties. However, it omits reversibility (the sibling unblock_public_actor suggests this can be undone), required permissions, and whether the block is one-way or mutual in enforcement terms.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and its consequences with no filler. Slightly compact to the point that the two-ID relationship is glossed over, but structurally efficient.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the observable effects but leaves gaps on parameter semantics, permissions, and reversibility. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not complete.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely refers to 'the specified participant' and 'both parties', never clarifying who actor_id is versus blocked_actor_id or whether the caller must be one of them. The distinction between the two IDs is left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific action (block a public actor) and, importantly, its two concrete effects: hiding the participant's content in public topics and rooms, and preventing mutual interaction. That is more informative than the bare name, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like report_public_content or unblock_public_actor.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. It does not say when blocking is preferable to report_public_content or review_public_report, nor does it mention the existing unblock_public_actor tool for reversing this action. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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