Update 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 this is a mutation operation ('Update', 'edit') and describes the scope of changes ('without changing content' or 'replace the entire block content'), but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded and concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core action, second explains the two update modes, third emphasizes the surgical nature. Zero 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 a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and some parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (permissions, reversibility), full parameter explanations, and output information. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for this complexity level.

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 5 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions 'attributes (indent, checked, listType)' and 'xml_content' for content replacement, explaining their purpose, but doesn't address graph_id, document_id, or block_id parameters. The description adds meaning for 2 of 5 parameters, insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a block by its ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's 'the most surgical edit' that 'only modifies what you specify', contrasting with batch operations like batch_update_blocks or broader document edits like write_document.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('only modifies what you specify' for 'surgical edit'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies this is for targeted updates versus batch operations, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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