explode_block

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core transformation: an inserted block group is converted into loose entities, which implies a mutating operation. However, it does not state whether the explosion is reversible, what happens to the original block definition or attributes, or whether specific permissions are required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and result, which is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but omits the required parameter's semantics, usage context, and behavioral side effects such as reversibility or impact on the block definition.

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?

There is one parameter, instance_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning. It refers to an "inserted block group" but never mentions instance_id or clarifies how to identify the target block instance.

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 ("Explode") and a specific resource ("an inserted block group"), and it states the result ("back into loose entities"). This clearly distinguishes it from block-creation tools like create_block/insert_block and group tools like ungroup.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as edit_block, ungroup, or create_exploded_view. It also omits prerequisites, like whether the block instance must already be inserted.

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