Set Block Param

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the block is reinitialized via InitBlock, explains why this matters for already-initialized blocks, reveals that parameter names are validated before writing, and notes the special rejection of 'Name'. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 structured into three short paragraphs, each focused on a meaningful behavioral caveat. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the historical note about the old warning, but that context justifies the design and every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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 complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers the critical lifecycle behavior, validation flow, and special-case rejection. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly, including handling edge 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that 'Name' is rejected despite being in the catalog and by describing the pre-write validation behavior. This helps the agent understand constraints that the schema alone does not convey.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Установить параметр блока' (set block parameter) and reinitialize the block. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_block_params (reading params) and set_signal (signals), and is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. It implies usage through its main verb, but there is no guidance about, for example, using get_block_params to discover valid parameter names or avoiding this tool for signal manipulation.

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