block

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, aligning with the write operations listed. The description adds operation-specific data shapes but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether operations affect the current drawing vs. a database. It is moderately transparent but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 compact and well-structured, using a bullet list to separate operations. Each line is informative and directly relevant. Minor inefficiency: the initial sentence could be integrated with the list, but overall it is concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is complex with multiple operations and an output schema exists (not shown). The description covers operation-specific parameters but lacks information on return values, error handling, permissions, or examples. Given the complexity, the description is helpful but incomplete for fully autonomous invocation.

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 has 0% coverage in its descriptions, but the tool description compensates by detailing the required data structure for each operation (e.g., {name, x, y, scale?, rotation?, ...}). However, it omits any explanation for 'include_screenshot' and does not fully document all possible data fields for 'define' (uses ellipsis). Thus, partial compensation.

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 explicitly states the tool's scope: 'Block definition, insertion, and attribute management.' It lists specific operations with clear verbs (list, insert, get_attributes, update_attribute, define). This makes the purpose clear and differentiates it from generic tools, though it does not explicitly compare with siblings.

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 operation list implies usage contexts (e.g., use insert to add a block, define to create a definition), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like 'entity' or 'drawing'. The context is implied by the block-specific operations, but exclusions are not stated.

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