Add Block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses little beyond the happy path: it does not say whether the call fails on an unknown block_type, whether a graph must already exist, whether the block is auto-connected, or what side effects occur in the live session. Only the name-derivation default is disclosed.

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?

One scope sentence followed by three labeled parameter notes, each carrying non-obvious information. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing is padding.

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?

The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the parameter notes are thorough. However, for a mutation on graph state with zero annotation coverage, error behavior and graph prerequisites are missing pieces an agent would want.

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 coverage is 0%, yet all three parameters are explained with concrete formats and examples: block_type's exact catalog-id syntax, name's derived default (signal_generator0-style), and the important rule that parameters should contain only values differing from defaults. This is exactly the compensation a bare schema needs.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Add a block instance to the current graph") that is clearly distinct from siblings like new_graph, remove_block, and connect. It does not explicitly say how it differs from set_parameters or update_block_settings, but the action itself 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?

Implies usage context by anchoring to "the current graph" and requiring an exact catalog id, which suggests search_blocks/describe_block should come first, but it never states prerequisites or when to prefer this over alternatives like load_graph. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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