gutenberg_scaffold_block_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (register custom style variations) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file generation, overwriting behavior), permissions, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded action and helpful parenthetical examples. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a simple scaffolding tool with well-described parameters. However, lacks detail on what the tool produces (e.g., generated files) and no output schema. Could benefit from mentioning side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter dependencies or usage nuances.

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 clearly states the tool registers custom block style variations for existing blocks, with concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gutenberg_scaffold_block (full block creation) and gutenberg_scaffold_block_pattern (patterns).

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?

The description implies usage for adding block styles but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like gutenberg_scaffold_block or gutenberg_scaffold_block_pattern. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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