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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that installed blocks keep their WordPress ID, that files are rewritten without creating a backend version, and that the result is indistinguishable from a locally built block. It stops short of explicitly flagging that local file edits are overwritten (destructive potential) or any permission/auth requirements.

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?

Purpose and input source are front-loaded, and each clause (retry case, ID retention, equivalence to local blocks) earns its place. It is dense and slightly long for a one-parameter tool, but there is little filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers the operational context an agent needs: the correct input source, the retry scenario, and downstream behavior of the imported block. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema already documents blockIds as uuid values from list-blocks, explicitly excluding the numeric WordPress id. The description reinforces this but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (install/reapply a project block on this site) and names the concrete input source (uuids from list-blocks as blockIds). It distinguishes itself from create-block and submit-version by describing what happens to already-installed blocks and by scoping to the 'current PROJECT version'.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering situation: 'Use this to retry after submit-version saved in the backend but failed to write locally.' It also gives a preference rule ('Prefer this over building the same section again') and clarifies the tool is not for fresh authoring. Alternatives are named concretely.

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