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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful pre-write confirmation instruction but says nothing about how the 'search' target is resolved (first match, all matches, substring), what happens when no paragraph matches, or what 'output' vs in-place editing does to the original file.

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 short sentences, with the action stated first and the safety caveat second. No filler, but there is room for one more sentence clarifying match behavior without becoming bloated.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations cover returns and safety, and the schema documents all six parameters. What remains missing is the one thing an agent cannot infer from structured fields: how the 'search' string is matched and what happens on zero or multiple matches for a destructive, non-idempotent edit.

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% and each parameter already documents its own meaning, including the create/output interaction and the search substring semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so it sits at the baseline-plus level for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: insert a new paragraph after an identified matching paragraph in a local document. The word 'after' implicitly distinguishes it from document_insert_paragraph_before and document_append_paragraph, but no sibling is ever named, so the agent must read the name to confirm the ordering semantics.

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 line 'Confirm the search target and intended location before writing' gives a caution for the moment of invocation but never says when to choose this over document_append_paragraph, document_prepend_paragraph, or document_insert_paragraph_before. The choice is left implicit in the tool name alone.

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