update_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the mutation/archive duality and the return value, but omits permission requirements, whether archival is reversible, and what happens to unspecified block fields — meaningful gaps for a destructive-capable write tool.

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 one-line summary, then compact Args/Returns sections. Every element is useful, though the Args/Returns template is slightly redundant given the output schema already covers returns.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are documented, so the core callable contract is covered. The remaining gap is behavioral (auth/permissions, reversibility of archival), which is notable given the absence of annotations.

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, and it largely does: block_id is identified as the target block's ID, and fields is explained with a concrete example ('{"paragraph": {"rich_text": [...]}}' or '{"archived": true}'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare object schema, though it doesn't enumerate the valid block-type keys.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update a block's content or archive it'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings such as update_database_row, delete_block, and append_blocks. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the block-scoped mutation is unambiguous.

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 implies two usage modes (content update vs. archival) and shows the shape of each call, which hints at when to use which. However, it never states when to prefer this over delete_block or append_blocks, nor any prerequisites, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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