Add Content Block

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description notes the positional constraint ('at most one of index/before/after') which adds value beyond annotations. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't disclose what the response contains (e.g., the created block's reference ID needed for later updates). The dryRun parameter implies a preview/dry-run behavior that isn't explained in the description.

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, dense, well-structured sentence. Every element earns its place: the verb+resource, the illustrative examples, the target, and the critical positional constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool with no output schema, no enum constraints on `type` (open-world), and 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description carries significant burden. It conveys the core action and key constraint but doesn't address what the response looks like, what dryRun previews, or what valid `type` values exist beyond three examples. It's adequate but leaves the agent to reason about return contract on its own.

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 clarifies the `position` object semantics (at most one of index/before/after), which is essential. However, it doesn't elaborate on `portalRef`, `pageRef`, `type`, or `props` beyond what names suggest, and with 6 params at 0% coverage the description only partially compensates. The examples of valid `type` values (Heading, RichText, WidgetGrid) are genuinely helpful.

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 what the tool does: 'Add a Hub-native content block (e.g. Heading, RichText, WidgetGrid) to a page at an optional position'. It uses a specific verb (Add) plus resource (content block) plus target (page) and provides concrete examples of block types, distinguishing it from siblings like update_content_block, delete_content_block, and move_block.

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 includes a key usage constraint: 'at most one of index/before/after' for positioning, which is critical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternative tools like place_widget or when not to use it, though the block types and positioning semantics give reasonable usage context.

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