prepend_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: this is a parent-first safe write that does not depend on next_id/previous_id, and it gives a concrete example of insertion order. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but the critical positioning semantics are transparent.

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 well-structured with dedicated sections for use cases, usage, differences, and a worked example. Every section adds value, and the example makes the insertion position unambiguous without being verbose.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, alternative routing, and behavioral consequences with a concrete example. Missing details like authentication are not necessary for correct invocation, and return values are handled by the output schema.

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 for the schema's silence. It explains that parent_id is the target parent block ID, data is the content to insert, and data_type supports markdown or dom. This covers all parameters, though exact dom formatting and default behavior are not detailed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inserting a child block at the front of a parent block. It also explicitly contrasts itself with insert_block, so an agent can distinguish the tools without reading schemas.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use when a stable parent-child relationship is needed, and explicitly directs users to insert_block when positioning by adjacent blocks is required. The distinction between the two tools is clearly stated.

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