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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing exactly what the destructive behavior entails: an identical sectionId replaces the prior block. The html param additionally documents that scripts/frames/event handlers are stripped and site classes won't apply.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and examples before the revision caveat. Each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value burden, but for a mutation tool the important thing is behavioral context, which is well covered (replacement semantics, stripping). The get_page_outline dependency is referenced via the schema rather than the description, a minor gap.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (html, scope, position, anchorKey, anchorTag, sectionId). The description adds the insertion-as-written and replace semantics but no additional parameter-level syntax. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Add a new block of content to a page") and grounds it with concrete examples (call-to-action, row of cards, banner). It clearly conveys that this inserts a section relative to an existing one. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_page or edit_text.

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?

It gives clear usage context, including the crucial rule that re-running with the same sectionId revises rather than duplicates, and that changing the sectionId adds a new block. No alternative tools are named for the when-not case, but the add-vs-revise condition is well specified.

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