insert_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies that rotation is in degrees, but omits details such as units for x/y, scale behavior, what happens if the block name does not exist, or whether the operation modifies the current drawing as expected.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundancy, every word adds value.

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 five-parameter schema, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and full parameter descriptions, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that x,y are coordinates and rotation is in degrees, but it does not mention the scale parameter at all. For five parameters, this leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 action ('insert') and resource ('a block (or .dwg file)') with specific placement at (x,y) and rotation in degrees. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_block or list_blocks by focusing on placement rather than definition or querying.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to distinguish between inserting an existing block and creating a new block definition, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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