Update Single Block

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool modifies data (write operation) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. The example shows the input but not the response or error conditions.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence stating the purpose immediately followed by a clear example. Every word contributes to understanding. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and provides an example. However, it does not describe the return value or confirm that the tool returns the updated block. With 3 required parameters and a nested object, additional context about the expected format of blockData would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (path, blockId, blockData). The description provides an example that clarifies the structure, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema definitions. The schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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 ('modifies the data of a single, existing block') and specifies the resource ('within a content item, identified by its block ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plone_add_single_block and plone_remove_single_block. The example provides concrete parameter usage.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plone_update_content or plone_add_single_block. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use. While the purpose is clear, the lack of when-to-use or when-not-to-use information limits its helpfulness.

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