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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, non-idempotent) by disclosing the critical side effect that an insert renumbers every subsequent row, that prior row orders go stale, and that a `renumbered` marker is returned. It also notes that read-only annotations are rejected, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and anchor options, then the return values, then the IMPORTANT warning in its own sentence. Dense but every clause carries actionable information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return (created rows with new row orders plus a `renumbered` marker) and the staleness consequence. Anchoring semantics, defaults, and rejection behavior are all covered, so an agent can call it correctly without further discovery.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: afterItemId takes a TraceID like FR-003, afterOrder corresponds to a [[row N]] anchor from a document read, and position is a fallback defaulting to end. It clarifies the anchor mutual-exclusivity that the flat schema does not express.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Insert one or more body blocks') with the exact anchoring modes enumerated (afterItemId, afterOrder, position) and the return shape named. An agent can distinguish this from traceable_block_update/delete purely from the description.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for each anchor path and the default ('position; default end'), plus explicit downstream guidance: re-read before further order-based calls, or anchor by TraceID. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling update/delete tools, but the when-to-use guidance within the tool is clear.

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