Set Block Attributes

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

The description correctly indicates a mutating operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false, but it adds little beyond the annotation. It does not disclose behaviors like failure modes, tag matching rules, or whether unspecified attributes are left untouched. The core mutating behavior is nevertheless clearly stated.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action. There is no filler or redundant elaboration; every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 a fully described schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could have mentioned the relationship to block_get_attributes or partial-update behavior, but the input schema already conveys the TAG→value update pattern.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters: handle as the block reference entity handle, and attributes as TAG-to-value mappings. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Update attribute values in a block reference' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like block_get_attributes. It also aligns with the tool name and title without being a tautology.

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 makes the tool's context clear: modifying attributes on a block reference. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the operation is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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