Add 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 of behavioral disclosure. The one-sentence description only states the action and does not reveal side effects, error behavior, validation rules, or return value semantics. Critical behavioral details like prop-name validation and name_hint being ignored are hidden in the schema descriptions, not the main description.

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 a single short sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for stating the core purpose. However, it is not front-loaded with any operational caveats, and while brevity is good, the lack of additional context is a weakness. Still, for what it contains, it is efficiently written.

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 has 7 parameters, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the response, or how it fits into the workflow (e.g., that the returned name must be used in connect). The schema provides substantial detail, but the description fails to offer any usage context or integration guidance.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema includes detailed descriptions for most parameters (e.g., props, in_ports, name_hint, allow_unknown_props). The description does not compensate for the ~29% of undocumented parameters, but the baseline holds because the schema largely covers the semantics.

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 ('Добавить' - add) and the resource ('блок на главную страницу проекта' - block to the project's main page). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_blocks, connect, or set_block_param, which perform different operations. The Russian phrasing is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open project), exclusions, or contexts where a different tool would be more appropriate. Some usage hints appear in the parameter descriptions (e.g., name_hint tells the agent to use the returned name in connect), but the main description itself lacks any such guidance.

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