update_block_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (replaces all text) and preservation of block type, but does not mention permissions, error handling, or return value. It is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds detail, third provides alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 string params), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about what the tool returns (despite having an output schema) and does not mention any side effects or prerequisites. It is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 coverage is 0%, so no parameter descriptions exist. The description clarifies that new_text is plain text, but does not explicitly describe each parameter beyond their names. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool replaces all text in a specific block with plain text, and distinguishes itself from find_replace_in_block. It uses a specific verb ('Replace'), identifies the resource ('all text in a specific block'), and provides additional context about preserving block type and replacing rich text.

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 explicitly directs users to use find_replace_in_block for targeted changes that preserve formatting, indicating when to prefer an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe prerequisites.

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