insert_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing side effects: 'pushing existing sections forward' and 'auto-renumbers all subsequent sections.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate the tool's impact. It omits error cases or permissions but covers core behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and uses precise terms like 'index', 'pushing forward', and 'renumbers.'

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?

The description explains purpose and side effects but lacks return-value or error-handling details, which is relevant given no output schema. It does not cover prerequisites like whether file_path must exist. Considering the moderate complexity and decent parameter documentation, it is adequate but incomplete.

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 80% and the section_index description already explains the push-forward behavior. The description reinforces this and ties the 'component' parameter to the section concept, but adds little new meaning for file_path or props. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Insert a new component section at a specific index'), the resource ('component section'), and the positional behavior ('pushing existing sections forward'). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing the section marker system and auto-renumbering, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when adding a new section at a specific position) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The reference to 'same section marker system as render_page' provides context but no direct comparison to edit_section or other siblings.

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