Placer des blocs de la bibliothèque

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

The annotations only cover safety and idempotency hints, but the description adds important behavior: missing block definitions are created automatically, existing definitions are preserved, repeated calls do not overwrite existing symbols, and the response contains created handles plus failures with the offending item index. It also tells the agent to verify with render_view.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and usage, then moves through behavior and parameter nuances. It is fairly long and somewhat repetitive about automatic definition creation, but most sentences carry useful operational 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?

For a complex batch insertion tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it creates, how repeated calls behave, how symbols are oriented, and what the response contains. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially that each symbol has a local reference point and that wall-mounted objects use the wall as X axis with the room on positive Y for rotation_deg.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it inserts a list of normalized symbol occurrences in one batch. It also lists the symbol types and distinguishes the tool from draw and build_structure, so an agent can identify its role without opening the 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to equip and furnish a plan after walls are placed by build_structure, and warns against making one call per object. It also names draw as the comparable alternative and explains why place_blocks is preferable.

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