Create Block From Entities

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that originals stay in model space, unresolved handles appear in `skipped`, and the call fails if none resolve — all valuable context beyond the annotation.

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 appropriately sized: three focused paragraphs. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds key behavioral contrast, and the third handles error semantics. Every sentence contributes without fluff.

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 tool's complexity (creating a block definition, 4 params, output schema present), the description covers all essential operational context: non-destructive behavior, alternative to AutoCAD BLOCK, skipped handles, and failure condition. No missing critical information.

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%, with each parameter (name, handles, base_x, base_y) already described meaningfully. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new block definition from existing entities in the drawing.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like block_insert (placing copies) and the AutoCAD BLOCK command (which consumes originals).

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'use `block_insert` to place copies, and delete the originals yourself if you want the command's behaviour.' This tells agents when to use this tool versus an alternative. Also notes 'Works on both engines,' giving compatibility guidance.

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