update_block

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains the fetch-and-merge pattern required by Qualtrics' PUT semantics, which is critical for correct invocation. It also declares the operation as 'safe', aligning with destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide essential behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant information.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral nuance (fetch-and-merge) and lists supported features. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the lack of output schema reduces the burden. It is sufficient for an experienced agent familiar with block definitions, though a note about prerequisites (e.g., block must exist) could improve completeness.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions 'question ordering, skip logic, randomization, and loop-and-merge,' which map to the 'options' and 'blockElements' parameters, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. For a tool with full schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Safely update part of a block definition.' It lists specific capabilities (question ordering, skip logic, randomization, loop-and-merge) that distinguish it from other block tools like create_block or delete_block. The verb 'update' combined with 'part of a block definition' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explains the update mechanism ('fetched and carried forward'), which helps the agent understand how to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as full replacement via a different tool or when to prefer update_block over create_block. The context of sibling tools provides some implicit guidance, but explicit when-not-to-use instructions are missing.

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