Insert Block

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

The annotations already convey that the operation is not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds modest value by mentioning that attribute values can be set, but it does not disclose whether the block must already exist, how failed insertions behave, or other side effects beyond the annotation's mutation signal.

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 that names the primary action first and the optional behavior second. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 full parameter schema, output schema, and annotation indicating mutation, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit context that the inserted block must refer to an existing block definition, but this is reasonably inferable from the tool name and the presence of block_list and block_create_from_entities among siblings.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive names and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that 'attributes' relates to attribute values; it does not clarify units, coordinate context, or block-definition requirements beyond the schema.

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 action ('Insert a block') and a resource, with the optional attribute-setting behavior clearly called out. It is unambiguous about the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like entity_create_block_ref or block_create_from_entities.

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 implies the tool should be used when inserting a block reference, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as entity_create_block_ref or when not to use it. Sibling differentiation is left entirely to the agent's inference from the tool name and context.

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