gutenberg_validate_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what is checked but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the return behavior is (e.g., success/failure indications). For a validation tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is clear, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every part adds value. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, errors, warnings), which is a gap for completeness.

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?

The only parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema with a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already provides 100% coverage. Thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'a Gutenberg block', and enumerates specific validation checks (block.json schema, required files, attribute definitions, text domain). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_plugin_structure' or 'validate_rest_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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. Its purpose is implied from the name and sibling context, but no direct usage instructions are given.

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