add-block-to-page-area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that a block is added, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, ordering with existing blocks, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. However, it may be too sparse to fully convey necessary context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, includes a nested object, lacks annotations, and has no output schema. A one-sentence description is insufficient to cover these complexities. Missing details include required parameters, behavior of type and value, return values, and relationship to sibling block tools, making the description inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 provides descriptions for 3 out of 4 parameters (pageID, areaHandle, value), giving baseline coverage. The description itself adds no parameter information. The 'type' parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate, but overall schema coverage is sufficient to warrant a mid-range score.

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: adding a block to a page area. The verb 'adds' and the resource 'block' with the location 'page area' specify the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like update-block-in-page-area or delete-block-from-page-area, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where update-block-in-page-area or delete-block-from-page-area would be preferable. The user is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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