updateContentBlock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the tool 'updates' with new field values, but does not disclose whether this merges or replaces fields, permissions needed, or how invalid blockIds are handled. For a mutation tool, this lacks critical behavioral detail.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing zero filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope.

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 has two well-described parameters and a nested object schema, but no output schema and no annotations. The description provides enough to invoke the tool, but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., merge vs replace semantics, error behavior) that would make it fully contextually complete for a mutation operation.

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%, so parameters are fully documented there. The tool description ('new field values and content') adds little beyond what the schema already states ('field updates'). Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, with no extra semantic contribution from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('content block'), scoped to 'the current project', and clarifies that it handles 'new field values and content'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getContentBlocks (read-only) and updateVulnerability (different resource).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an existing content block needs to be modified. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'update' verb and resource specificity make the intended usage unambiguous against the sibling list.

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