wps_word_insert_text

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states 'insert text' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether the cursor moves after insertion, whether formatting is preserved, or if there are any side effects (e.g., overwriting content at start/end). The minimal description fails to inform the agent of important runtime behavior.

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 extremely brief (one sentence plus a colon-enum mapping). It is front-loaded with the action. While concise, it could benefit from an additional sentence clarifying insertion behavior. No extra words, but the brevity may sacrifice clarity.

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 tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, so moderate description is expected. The description covers the core action and position options, but omits details like whether insertion is plain text, if it affects subsequent content, or how it interacts with cursor position. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to reason 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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds the explicit mapping of enum values to Chinese phrases ('cursor=光标处 / start=文首 / end=文末'), but this largely mirrors the schema's enum descriptions. The addition is marginal, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'insert' and the resource 'text in the current document'. It lists the three positional options (cursor, start, end), which distinguish it from sibling tools like wps_word_replace, wps_word_append_paragraph, etc. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wps_word_append_paragraph or wps_word_replace. The description only explains the parameter options without any context about when insertion is appropriate or when to avoid it. Given the many sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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