Insert text

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses insertion semantics, newline-to-paragraph behavior, table-cell coordinate requirements, and target restrictions. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context the schema and annotations do not carry.

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?

Four tightly written sentences pack the essential behavior, target constraints, table-cell handling, and sibling routing with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers operation semantics, target validity, coordinate pairing, placeholder use, and the alternative for replacement. An agent has enough to decide whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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. The description adds value by clarifying that row_index and column_index must be used together, that insertion_index defaults to the beginning, and that the object must be a text-capable shape or table — details that enrich the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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?

States a specific verb ('inserts text'), the resource ('shape or table cell'), and the key positional behavior (0-based index, default 0). It explicitly differentiates from set_text, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among the sibling list.

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?

Names the alternative (set_text) for replacement, gives a positive use case (filling empty layout placeholders), and states the target constraint (shapes with text or tables, not images/lines). Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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