manage_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about mutation side effects: whether 'create' fails or overwrites when block_name already exists, whether 'insert' modifies the active drawing, whether operations are undoable, or what permissions/connection state are required. 'List' versus two write modes is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A front-loaded summary sentence followed by a per-parameter list is an efficient structure for a 10-parameter tool, and each line earns its place by stating which action the parameter serves. The raw 'Args:' dump is slightly mechanical but not padded.

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, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with three modes, two of which mutate the drawing, and zero annotation coverage, the definition leaves out error conditions, state prerequisites, and the effect of insertion on the current drawing. It is adequate to construct a call but not to predict its consequences.

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% and the schema does not even enumerate the allowed 'action' values, so the description does real work: it enumerates 'list', 'create', 'insert' and maps every parameter to the mode that consumes it ('point' as base point versus insertion point, handles required only for 'create', scale/rotation only for 'insert'). It still omits accepted formats for point (2D vs 3D) and handles, and the units/range for ACI color.

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 opening sentence names three specific operations and their resources: listing blocks, creating a block definition from entity handles, and inserting a block reference. It is clearly distinguishable from drawing siblings like draw_line or modify_entities. It does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 Args section implies when each field matters by tying them to 'create' and 'insert', which gives implicit mode-selection guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., must a connection or drawing be active), and no note on what 'list' returns versus the other modes.

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