batch_insert_blocks

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

The description discloses the mutation side effect ('Inserts block references across the drawing') and the optimistic-locking precondition, which go beyond readOnlyHint=false. It does not describe atomicity, partial failure behavior, or required transaction context for a potentially large batch, so it is strong but not complete.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and precondition, then gives side effects and disambiguation in compact labelled lines. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition.

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 mutating batch tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, precondition, side effects, and alternative. It leaves out batch atomicity and failure semantics, which would be useful given it can insert up to 10000 objects, but the essential call guidance is present.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. The description adds useful semantic context by noting the quantity bound, persistent-PID binding, and that document PID and predecessor fingerprint must still match for the insert to proceed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Insert ... block references') and adds precise scope: 1..10000, persistent-PID-bound, through the managed native bridge. It also distinguishes the tool from block_insert, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

It explicitly routes the agent: use for bulk component placement, and use block_insert for single placement. It also gives a concrete precondition, matching caller document PID and predecessor fingerprint, making when-to-use clear.

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