insert_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the operation clones member entities, implying mutation, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether the block definition must already exist), side effects, error conditions, or the resulting object's state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with a nested object and four parameters, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's mutation behavior, nested input schema, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently detailed. It does not explain what happens after insertion, what is returned, or how the required parameters affect the operation, leaving major gaps for an agent to call it 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% with four parameters, including a nested position object. The description mentions only 'block definition' (loosely mapping to block_name) and provides no meaning for position, scale, or rotation. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('block definition'), and the mechanism 'by cloning its member entities' clarifies the operation. It is distinguishable from 'create_block' and 'explode_block' through the verb, but it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_block, edit_block, or explode_block. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context.

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