nbc_block

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

Annotations only provide a title and no read-only or destructive hints, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates both read operations (list, get_attributes) and write operations (insert, define, update_attribute), but it does not disclose side effects, required context, or what happens on updates. This is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.

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 very concise and front-loads the resource and operation set with no filler words. It earns its place by listing the supported operations quickly, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool definition is incomplete for reliable use. It omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, and behavioral details for a multi-operation tool. An agent would need substantial external inference to invoke it correctly.

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%, yet the description does not compensate. It does not explain the 'data' parameter, the effect of 'include_screenshot', or the valid values for 'operation' beyond the loosely named operations in the text. For a 3-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions, this leaves the agent guessing about essential invocation details.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'block' and enumerates five concrete operations: list, insert, define, get_attributes, and update_attribute. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nbc_wall and nbc_entity. However, the generic 'Block ops' framing and lack of a single primary use statement keep it just below a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nbc_drawing or nbc_system. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The operation list implies usage but does not clarify selection logic.

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