patch_block_content

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses marker uniqueness, the meaning of blockWarnings, and corrective action, and implies a write/save operation. It doesn't cover permissions, reversibility, or version-conflict behavior, but provides more behavioral context than typical.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, constraint, post-condition. Front-loaded with the core function and operation types.

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?

Complex tool with six parameters and three op types, but the schema fully documents parameters and the description supplies the key operational caveats. It lacks explicit success/error response details beyond blockWarnings and doesn't mention concurrency failures, but is reasonably complete given schema richness.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions marker matching and block warnings, but these are also in the schema; it adds no new parameter-specific meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Apply surgical HTML edits') and resource ('block's localized content string'), lists the three operations, and contrasts with re-sending full content, which distinguishes it from the sibling update_block_content. This is exactly what an agent needs to identify the tool.

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?

Gives an explicit gate: 'Only call after the user confirms' – clear when to invoke. It implies surgical edits vs full resend as the use case, but doesn't name alternatives like update_block_content 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.