gutenberg_scaffold_dynamic_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the block uses a PHP render callback (server-side rendering) but does not mention side effects (file generation, project modification), error behavior, or prerequisites beyond the input schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every phrase is meaningful and directly supports understanding. No extraneous 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?

Given 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: explains the dynamic nature and typical use case. However, it does not describe what the tool produces (file structure, placement) or any side effects, which would be valuable for a scaffolding tool.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The description does not explain parameter usage or format details beyond what is already in the schema, e.g., 'attributes' remains as 'name:type' pairs without examples.

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 generates a dynamic Gutenberg block using a PHP render callback, distinguishing it from static blocks. It uses specific verbs ('Generate') and resources ('dynamic Gutenberg block') and contrasts with save.js, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear usage context by noting the tool is 'ideal for blocks that show live data (recent posts, queries, etc.)'. It implies when to use it but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like gutenberg_scaffold_block for static blocks.

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