Add another Insert-panel block

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: content lands after the currently selected section, and the last section is selected by default so content appends at the end. It does not mention that a site/page must be open first, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, each doing a distinct job: what it inserts, what it does not, and where the content lands. Front-loaded and free of filler. Minor waste in restating the enum values already present in the schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, exclusions, placement semantics and the natural follow-up tool. Missing only the precondition (an open site/page, and that a section must exist to append after), which an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining why the surface is so small ('needs no input') and by listing the permitted values. Listing the enum values duplicates the schema enum, but the 'needs no configuration' framing tells the agent not to hunt for additional options.

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?

States a specific verb ('Insert') and a bounded resource ('a simple block that needs no input'), then enumerates the four exact block values. It explicitly routes other block types to their own gsites_add_* tools, so an agent can distinguish it from gsites_add_map, gsites_add_drive_item, gsites_add_carousel and gsites_add_social_links without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: maps, Drive files, calendars, carousels and social icons belong to their own gsites_add_* tools. It also gives the follow-up condition ('Use gsites_move_section to reorder afterwards'), which tells the agent what to do when the insertion point is wrong rather than guessing.

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