add_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'Insert's a field, implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what happens if the paragraph or field already exists. The given examples of field codes add context, but overall transparency is low for a potentially destructive operation.

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 concise, using two sentences plus a bullet-style argument list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, with no wasted words. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description covers the basic operation and parameter meanings. However, it misses details like error handling, validation of para_id existence, or behavior when cached_value conflicts. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for a production tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: para_id as 'w14:paraId of target paragraph', field_code as 'field instruction text', and cached_value as 'optional display text'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 Word field') and the location ('at end of paragraph'), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like insert_if_field or insert_date_field, which are more specialized. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_if_field or insert_sequence_field. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the generic field code examples, which is insufficient for decision-making.

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