insert_blocks_after

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not the sole source. The description usefully discloses the payload contract (a JSON array of block objects), but says nothing about ordering effects, permissions required, or what the now-ambiguous 'make_block format' reference points to — no make_block tool exists among the siblings, so that pointer may dead-end for the agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by the payload contract, the inline example, and the alternative — each sentence earns its place. The embedded JSON example is the one bulky element, but it is functional rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the only things the description must supply are the payload format and sibling routing, and it does both. Remaining gaps — anchor-block semantics and the dangling 'make_block format' reference — are minor for a two-parameter insertion 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does the important half: blocks_json is defined as a JSON array of block objects with a concrete worked example. block_id is only implied by 'after a specific block' — the description never confirms it identifies the anchor block rather than a container — leaving a modest gap on the remaining parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource and precise placement semantics ('Insert new blocks after a specific block'), so the agent knows this is a positional block insertion, not an append. It explicitly contrasts with insert_text_after, though it never distinguishes itself from append_blocks_to_page, which is a plausible source of tool-selection confusion.

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?

'For simple cases, use insert_text_after instead' gives an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of a full when/when-not statement (e.g. when to prefer append_blocks_to_page or when multi-block payloads are required), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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