add_literal

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 only states 'Add a literal block holding a constant' and dives into value formatting. It does not disclose side effects (does it modify the notebook in place?), return behavior, permissions, or any constraints on the operation. As a write operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence plus examples, which is efficient. It front-loads the action and then provides the critical value-shape details. The structure is clean, though the value examples could arguably be moved to the parameter schema. It earns its place for conveying essential information without fluff.

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 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It only explains the value parameter's shape; notebook, name, output, and blockId are left entirely to the agent's inference. There is no mention of return values or behavior on failure. The tool likely operates in a complex notebook context, and the description does not equip an agent to call it correctly for all required inputs.

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 only 17% (only the type property has a description). The description compensates by explaining the exact shape of the 'value' parameter for common literal types (length scalar, point, enum), which is valuable. However, other parameters (notebook, name, output, blockId) receive no extra meaning beyond the schema. The description adds value where it matters most but doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 clear action and resource: 'Add a literal block holding a constant.' It's distinct from generic add_block and set_literal_value, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings. The purpose is understandable at a glance, but it could be sharper about what makes this different from adding other block types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_literal_value or add_block. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. An agent has to infer the intended use case from the name and sibling context, which is insufficient.

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