strudel_set_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the atomic failure behavior ('if Strudel rejects the code... nothing changes'), the environment prerequisite (needs TIDAL_UI_PORT), and that effects apply to all open pages. It omits success/return behavior and any concurrency or rate-limit notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each sentence adds distinct information (scope, block format, interaction, failure mode). The inline example is somewhat bulky but earns its place by demonstrating syntax.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, prerequisite, side effects, and failure behavior. It is nearly complete, lacking only detail on the success/return signal.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete example patterns (s("bd*2 [~ sd]").bank("RolandTR909")) that illustrate valid `code` syntax and reinforce the replace-on-name-reuse semantics for `name`. This extra illustrative value lifts it above the schema-only baseline.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Add or replace') and resource ('a named block in the Strudel program'), and clarifies the scope ('plays on every open Strudel page'). An agent can distinguish this from strudel_remove_block or strudel_hush without opening any schema.

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 the add-vs-replace semantics (reusing a name replaces that block) and that blocks play together, which implies usage. However, it never names the sibling alternatives (strudel_remove_block, strudel_hush, strudel_get_state) or states when to prefer this tool over them, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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