replace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never says this is a destructive bulk mutation that overwrites existing blocks, whether it is undoable, or what happens to blocks that partially match. Only the state-matching behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of undefined terminology ('role', 'design'), but nothing is redundant.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the state-matching rule is a genuinely useful extra. But for a three-required-parameter destructive mutation with zero annotation and zero schema-doc coverage, key facts (undoability, scope of 'every', design identification) are missing.

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%, so the description must explain all three required parameters. It gives partial meaning for 'old' (matching all states when no state is specified) but says nothing about 'new' versus 'old' formats or what the required 'design' parameter refers to (ID, name, handle).

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 verb 'Swaps' is specific and the object ('every old block or role for new') is identifiable, distinguishing it from set_block (single assignment) and clear (removal). It stops short of naming the design/schematic context the way a 5 would, but an agent can still place it among the siblings.

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 statement of when to use this versus set_block, copy, clear, or symmetrize, and no prerequisites or warnings. The note about block names without state is a matching rule, not guidance about tool selection.

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