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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local, non-destructive write. The description adds useful context on the html parameter (self-contained, may load only specific CDNs, cannot fetch data at runtime), but this is largely present in the schema too and the description omits side effects like what happens to existing blocks.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates representative block types. No wasted words, tight and well-structured.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin on prerequisites (auth, boardId source), coordinate semantics, and interaction with other block tools. It covers the html content constraint well but leaves gaps an agent would need filled.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters including format enums and dimensions. The description adds the semantic distinction that a slide holds one block per deck slide, but doesn't clarify x/y, headFrom usage, or sizing rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb+resource ('Put a designed HTML block on a Flett board') with concrete examples of block kinds (slide, page, chart, mockup, card, diagram). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_file, add_map, and add_answer, though it doesn't name a specific alternative tool.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The description lists content types but never tells the agent when to pick add_block over edit_block, add_file, or draw, nor does it state prerequisites like needing a boardId from list_boards.

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