insert_block

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds that a missing attribute TAG produces a warning and that the action is reversible via Ctrl+Z, plus that the block must already be defined. It does not describe return content, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then sections for when-to-use and parameters; every line is useful. The example is somewhat lengthy but demonstrative, so it largely earns its place.

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?

With an output schema available, return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers purpose, placement, required vs optional parameters with formats, unit conventions, error/warning behavior, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 carry the load, and it does: name (existing block, see list_block_definitions), point (2D or 3D in drawing units), scale (scalar or triple), rotation (degrees, counterclockwise), layer (must exist unless create_missing_layer=true), and attributes ({TAG: value}) with warning behavior. A concrete call example seals the mapping.

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 precise verb and resource ('Insere UMA referência de bloco') and narrows scope with 'UMA' (single reference from an existing definition). This clearly distinguishes it from bulk siblings like import_blocks_from_excel and from definition-creation tools like dxf_define_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?

The 'QUANDO USAR' section gives the exact condition ('colocar um suporte/símbolo em coordenadas conhecidas') and names the alternative plus its trigger ('Para muitos blocos a partir de planilha, use import_blocks_from_excel'). It also flags that the operation is undoable with Ctrl+Z.

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