Adicionar bloco de texto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the insert is static, has no answer field, and that indices count all items — valuable context. However, it doesn't mention side effects, permission requirements, or the response format for this mutation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains zero filler. Every sentence earns its place by adding the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance.

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 simple insertion tool with a well-documented schema, the description provides adequate operational context, including a verification hint. It would benefit from noting return value or error behavior, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's note about positions counting all items is already present in the schema's index description, so it adds no additional semantic value beyond what is structured.

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 uses the specific verb 'Insere' (inserts) and clearly identifies the resource as a 'bloco de texto estático' (static text block), distinguishing it from siblings via 'sem campo de resposta' (without an answer field). It clearly states what the tool does and how it differs from question/section tools.

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 explains that the block goes 'entre as perguntas' (between questions) and that positions count all items, advising to check with get_form. This gives clear placement and verification context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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