Insert Block Reference

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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description adds meaningful behavior: it enumerates the refusal conditions enforced before any write (undefined block name, layout blocks *Model_Space/*Paper_Space, non-string names) and quotes the exact error text. It does not cover how layer/scale/rotation are applied, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then the failure conditions. The heavy backtick/parenthetical style is slightly dense but each clause carries real information, so it stays efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description supplies the missing piece for a mutation tool: the pre-write validation gate. Coverage of mutation semantics and sibling routing is strong, with only the parameter-level behavior of layer/scale/rotation left unaddressed.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that name must reference an existing block definition but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Insert a block reference') and immediately defines it as an instance of an existing block definition. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling block_insert by being 'the no-attributes form', so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Points to block_list as the way to verify a valid name and clarifies the relationship to block_insert. It gives clear context but stops short of an explicit 'use block_insert instead when attributes are needed' routing rule.

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