insert_block

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say that this is a mutating operation on the active drawing, whether the drawing must be open, what happens if the named block does not exist, or what (if anything) is returned. The scale/rotation semantics are the only behavioral detail offered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (existing, local, model space, uniform, degrees) carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. Preconditions (active/open drawing, pre-existing block), failure modes for an unknown block name, and the effect on the drawing are all missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine value for two parameters: 'uniform' scale (single number, not per-axis) and rotation 'in degrees' (units absent from the schema). However, the required 'position' object is never mentioned, and the optional z-coordinate/default behavior is left entirely to the schema's required list.

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 an existing local block definition into model space.' The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling create_block, and 'block definition' distinguishes it from the draw_* entity tools, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement, no alternatives, no exclusions. The phrase 'existing local block definition' hints that a block must already exist (list_blocks/create_block first), but this prerequisite is left for the agent to infer.

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