Insert Block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the new block's generated ID, which is useful behavioral information. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or mutation effects beyond the basic operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and alternative usage. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains parameter usage, and the third provides sibling differentiation. No wasted words.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and sibling differentiation but misses details on parameter meanings beyond 'position', error handling, and return format specifics. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'position' parameter's semantics ('after' or 'before'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it doesn't clarify the purpose of other parameters like 'graph_id', 'document_id', 'reference_block_id', or 'xml_content', leaving gaps in understanding.

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 specific action ('Insert a new block relative to an existing block') and distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('For appending to the end, use append_to_document instead'). It specifies both the verb (insert) and resource (block) with context about positioning.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it specifies to use 'append_to_document' for appending to the end, and implies usage for inserting relative to existing blocks. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'append_to_document' and 'batch_update_blocks'.

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