add_block_to_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the block id is auto-generated, explains the layout/content behavior, and describes the blockWarnings outcome on invalid content. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a realistic expectation of side effects and validation results.

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 focused paragraph that front-loads the core action, then provides conditional logic, and ends with a warning. Every sentence contributes value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. It is appropriately sized for a tool with nested objects.

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 tool with nested block objects and multiple parameters, the description covers the key usage aspects: id generation, layout vs. content selection, position behavior, and validation warnings. No output schema is present, but the description could still benefit from a brief note on the return value, though it is not critical for a 'add' operation.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters with 75% coverage, but the description adds meaning: it explains the distinction between layoutRegion and content blocks, clarifies that position is content-only, and interprets blockWarnings. This supplements the schema with context that helps the agent pick the right parameter values.

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 a block to a page'), names the resource (page), and includes a key detail (auto-generates the block id). It also distinguishes between layout and content blocks via layoutRegion, which separates it from related block-editing 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?

The description provides a clear trigger ('Only call after the user confirms') and specifies when to pass layoutRegion versus omit it, but it does not compare this tool to alternatives like update_page_blocks or update_block_content, nor does it state when to use this tool instead of those. This leaves the agent without sibling-differentiating guidance.

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