block

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms this with operations like 'insert' and 'update_attribute' that imply mutations. The description adds some behavioral context by listing specific operations and their data structures, but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, or error conditions beyond what annotations imply.

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 efficiently structured with a summary line followed by bullet-like operation listings. Each operation is clearly named with minimal data structure hints. No wasted sentences, though the formatting could be more polished.

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 (multiple operations with different data structures), 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers operation types and basic data shapes but lacks comprehensive parameter documentation, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains the 'operation' parameter through listed operations and hints at 'data' structures for each operation, but doesn't document 'include_screenshot' at all or provide full details on data field requirements/constraints.

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 tool's purpose as 'Block definition, insertion, and attribute management' with specific operations listed. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'entity' or 'layer' by focusing on block operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 lists operations but doesn't indicate when each operation is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'entity' or 'drawing'.

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