set_block_attrs

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (write operation) and not destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not clarify whether attrs are merged or overwritten, nor does it specify any side effects or error conditions.

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 extremely concise (4 characters in Chinese) and front-loaded. While it efficiently states the core purpose, it may be too brief for an agent to infer full usage, but for a simple setter tool it is acceptable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least imply return behavior (e.g., whether it returns the updated attributes). It does not mention whether existing attributes are merged or replaced, leaving ambiguity. The tool has a moderate complexity due to the nested attrs object.

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 100%, with both 'id' and 'attrs' having Chinese descriptions. The tool-level description provides no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '设置块属性' translates the tool name 'set_block_attrs' into Chinese, clearly indicating the verb ('set') and resource ('block attributes'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_block or get_block_attrs, lacking specificity about what constitutes 'attributes' vs other block properties.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_block for block content, get_block_attrs for reading). There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or preferred contexts.

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