wp_blocks_insert

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses optimistic concurrency protection via hash references and dry-run support, but it does not describe failure behavior, side effects, or whether the operation can be partially applied.

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?

Two concise sentences carry the core message with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the two most operationally relevant behaviors: hash safety and dry-run.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, rich selector unions, and no output schema, but the description provides only one sentence of operational context. An agent would need to infer most invocation semantics from the schema alone, leaving significant gaps around selectors, position behavior, and success/error outcomes.

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 50%, and the description adds meaningful context for hash-based references ('prevent overwriting a block changed since it was read'). However, it does not clarify the at selector variants, block structure, position values, or normalization behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Insert Gutenberg block(s)', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the insert operation from update/replace/move by name, though it does not explicitly reference any sibling tool.

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 wp_blocks_replace, wp_blocks_update, or wp_blocks_move. The mention of hash references and dry-run are safety features, not criteria for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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