edit_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Return a block definition' suggests a read operation, but 'for editing' creates ambiguity about whether it mutates state. It doesn't explain what the returned definition contains, whether editing occurs as a side effect, or any permissions/constraints—inadequate for a tool with a mutating-sounding name and zero structured behavioral cues.

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?

It's a single short sentence, which is concise, but the content is vague rather than front-loaded with useful detail. Brevity without information isn't efficient structure here.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage mean the description must carry everything. It doesn't explain the return value, editing semantics, or how it relates to sibling block tools. For a tool with such a rich set of related siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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?

Only one parameter (block_name) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't add meaning to block_name beyond what the name implies, but with a single required string parameter the baseline is 3 per the rule for low-coverage single-param cases.

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 restates the name in a tautological way: 'Return a block definition for editing' adds no specific verb+resource information beyond what 'edit_block' already implies. It doesn't clarify whether this retrieves data, prepares a block for editing, or performs the edit itself, and gives no differentiation from siblings like insert_block or explode_block.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for editing' hints at a use case, but there's no statement about when this should be called nor what the alternative would be. With many sibling block-related tools, this is a notable gap.

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