insert_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adds meaningful behavior: it discloses support for negative scale, explains that xscale=-1 mirrors units on the same definition, and warns that mirrored bathroom blocks are separate entities (A01 vs A01e). It stops short of covering other side effects or error cases, but the information provided is useful and non-obvious.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the additional caveat about mirroring is relevant. It is slightly conversational with 'Ojo', but every sentence adds value and it remains compact.

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 has 9 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains one behavior (negative scale mirroring) but omits how other parameters interact, what happens when the block is not defined, or what the output schema returns. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the tool still needs more behavioral coverage.

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 must compensate. It adds semantics for xscale (negative scale implies mirroring) but leaves most of the 9 parameters (layer, rotation, mirror, create_layer, etc.) unexplained. It also creates ambiguity by mentioning xscale=-1 for mirroring while a mirror boolean parameter exists, without clarifying the relationship.

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: 'Inserta un bloque ya definido en el dibujo' (inserts an already defined block in the drawing). It explicitly uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'ya definido' distinguishes this from related tools like import_block or draw_from_library.

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?

It implies usage for inserting pre-defined blocks, and the caveat about bathroom typology provides context for a specific case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions such as 'use import_block for new blocks'.

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