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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, and the description adds useful context: the block changes at once, execution uses the owner's AI key or a trial, and the result is markup. This complements the annotations without contradicting them. It stops short of richer details such as permissions or failure modes.

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 short, front-loads the action, and adds behavioral context without wasted sentences. The phrasing 'a block of that name changes at once' is slightly awkward but still purposeful.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool, the definition leaves required fields like site, kind, and template unexplained and gives no semantics for optional parameters. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the description does not fill the schema-description gap an agent needs to call this correctly.

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% across nine parameters, and the description does not explain site, name, kind, template, field, lists, scope, period, or audience. The phrase 'block of that name' weakly hints at the name parameter, but this is far from enough to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: saves an AI block prompt. The parenthetical about the named block changing at once further clarifies the object. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling save_* tools, but the AI-block wording is enough to identify the core operation.

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 does not say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as save_app_list or save_list, nor does it state when not to use it. The AI-key/trial note is execution context, not routing guidance.

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