add_code_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the visual outcome of the created object (monospace, dark background, syntax highlighting), which is genuine behavioral context. However it says nothing about object identity/handles, whether the target board must be open, undoability, or permissions — the live-vs-file behavior only surfaces in the schema's path field.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (appearance details) conveys useful information.

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 simple creation tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the appearance note plus rich schema descriptions of placement and target board are largely sufficient. The main omission is what the tool returns (e.g. the created object's id) for follow-up operations.

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 80%, so x, y, page and path are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sizing guidance for 'code' or positioning, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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?

Specific verb 'Adds' plus a concrete resource 'code block', and it even characterizes the rendered result (monospace, dark background, syntax highlighting). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling creators like add_table or add_formula, but the resource is distinctive enough to select on.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus add_table, add_formula, or import_mermaid, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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