insert_blocks_after

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

No annotations provided, so the description must bear the burden. It explains the required format for blocks_json but lacks details on error behavior, side effects, or return values. The insertion action is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by format explanation and alternative recommendation. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description covers purpose, format, and alternative, it omits prerequisites (e.g., block_id must exist), failure scenarios, and any mention of the output schema. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning for blocks_json: it specifies JSON array format, provides an example, and references 'make_block format'. However, block_id lacks any elaboration beyond its name.

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 verb ('Insert') and resource ('new blocks after a specific block'). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'insert_text_after' by recommending the alternative for simple cases.

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 explicit guidance on when to use an alternative: 'For simple cases, use insert_text_after instead.' This clearly delineates usage context from a sibling tool.

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