insert_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains cm vs EMU override and alignment behavior, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it replace existing images?), error conditions, or required document state (e.g., para_id must exist).

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide key details on size units and alignment. No redundant or unnecessary phrases.

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 8 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is not sufficiently complete. It lacks information on success results, error conditions, supported image formats, and document state prerequisites, which an agent needs for correct invocation despite having an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds some meaning to size parameters (cm preferred, override EMU) and align parameter (sets paragraph alignment). However, it does not describe critical parameters like image_path (expected format?), document_handle (scope?), or clarify para_id requirement beyond being required.

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 tool inserts an image after a paragraph, with size and alignment details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'insert_floating_image', leaving potential ambiguity about inline vs floating images.

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 minimal guidance: it notes preferred size units and alignment options, but does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_floating_image, set_image_size) or any prerequisites such as requiring an open document.

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