substack_add_code_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 states 'Add a code block to a draft,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires draft editing permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or how it affects the draft's state. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively in practice.

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 high at 80%, with parameters like 'code' and 'language' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'draft_id' or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 action ('Add') and target resource ('code block to a draft'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'substack_append_to_draft' or 'substack_update_draft' that might also modify drafts, missing explicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'substack_append_to_draft' and 'substack_update_draft' available, there's no indication of whether this is for specific code formatting, how it integrates with other draft modifications, or any prerequisites for use.

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