transfer_block_ref

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

Annotations are all false, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or result behavior. It does not contradict annotations but fails to add value.

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 very concise (one short phrase) but lacks structure. It is not wasteful, but it is too terse to be informative. A slightly longer description with structured details would improve usability.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of three parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the operation's effect, return value, or any constraints, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, which are generic. Baseline 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 is a single Chinese phrase '转移块引用' meaning 'transfer block reference'. While it indicates the general action, it lacks specificity about what exactly is being transferred (references from one block to another?) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_block' or 'update_block'.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions, leaving the agent uncertain about appropriate contexts.

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