Insert a page or section break

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

Annotations already mark this as a mutating, non-idempotent operation (`readOnlyHint: false`, `idempotentHint: false`), so the description's additional details are valuable beyond structured data. It explains that a break occupies one index position, how each kind behaves, and the constraint on insertion targets, which helps the agent predict side effects and plan subsequent operations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place: position semantics, kind semantics, section style note, insertion constraints, and removal guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: how to specify position, what each kind does, where breaks are not allowed, and how to remove them. It lacks an explicit note about return values or invalid-index behavior, but these are not needed for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema's terse `kind` description. It explains exactly what each enum value does and clarifies that omitting `index` appends at the end of the body. This enriches parameter understanding enough to score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inserts a break') and immediately clarifies the three distinct kinds (`page`, `section_next_page`, `section_continuous`). This clearly differentiates it from sibling insertion tools like `insert_text`, `insert_table`, and `insert_image`, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: insert at a specific index, append at end if omitted, and it explicitly states exclusions (cannot be inserted into headers, footers, footnotes, or table cells). It also cross-references `delete_range` for removal and `raw_request updateSectionStyle` for styling sections, providing useful routing hints, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling insert tools.

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