Set Block Attributes

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses pre-write validation (bad types refused naming the tag before anything changes), that unknown tags are silently ignored, and the updated_tags reporting contract. It falls short of stating permissions or failure modes on a missing/invalid handle.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and then the value rule, with essentially every sentence carrying invocation-relevant information. Phrasing is slightly idiosyncratic ('bursts', 'on both engines') but not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and minimal annotations, the description supplies the constraints, atomicity guarantee, value-type rules and round-trip consistency an agent needs to call it safely. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the 3 baseline applies, but the description meaningfully exceeds it: it defines which value types are writable (strings/numbers) versus refused (null/booleans/lists/objects), how multi-line values are encoded via 'Line1\\PLine2', and how unknown tag keys are treated. Only the handle parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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+resource ('Update attribute values in a block reference') that is unmistakably distinct from the read-side sibling block_get_attributes and the creation-side block_insert. The scope is narrow and the agent can select it without opening another 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?

Usage is strongly implied by the mutating verb and the discussed constraints (values are refused before anything changes), but there is no explicit routing guidance such as when to prefer block_insert/block_define or what preconditions the reference must satisfy. The mentions of block_insert, block_get_attributes and block_explode are consistency references, not alternatives for the agent to choose between.

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