block

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, offering little behavioral detail. The description compensates by listing mutating operations (insert, define, update_attribute) and specifying the data payload expected for each. It still omits side effects or permissions, but the operation-level detail goes well beyond the minimal annotation.

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 compact and scannable, with a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of operations. Every line adds necessary information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a multi-operation tool with a non-specific schema, this description provides a solid operation catalog and per-operation data contracts. It lacks detail on the 'include_screenshot' parameter and error/return behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document returns. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the correct operation in most cases.

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 is highly generic: 'operation' is a bare string without an enum, and 'data' is a free-form object. The description compensates by enumerating valid operation values and giving explicit data shapes (name, x, y, scale?, rotation?, etc.). However, the 'include_screenshot' parameter is never explained, preventing full semantic coverage.

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 opens with 'Block definition, insertion, and attribute management,' which clearly identifies the resource (blocks) and the verbs (define, insert, manage attributes). It then enumerates six specific sub-operations, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like layer, entity, or annotation.

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 conveys a clear domain: everything here is block-related, so an agent can infer when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use entity for non-block operations'), leaving a minor gap in when-not-to-use guidance.

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