docs_insert_paragraph

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It adds value by stating 'no separate style call needed,' which reveals that this is a combined insert-and-style operation. It also enumerates acceptable style values. However, it does not mention side effects such as index shifting or the behavior of other formatting parameters (bold, italic, alignment).

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 three lines and every sentence adds information: the core purpose, the sibling alternative, and the style enum. There is no filler.

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 a complex 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only the style parameter and the insertion position, omitting guidance on the formatting flags (bold, italic, alignment, bullet_preset) and any edge-case behavior. While the output schema exists, parameter semantics are severely under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'style' parameter ('NORMAL_TEXT (body), TITLE, SUBTITLE, HEADING_1..HEADING_6') and implies an index requirement. The other six parameters (document_id, text, bold, italic, alignment, bullet_preset) receive no explanation, leaving the agent without sufficient semantics for correct invocation.

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 'Insert one fully-styled paragraph at a specific index' with a clear verb, resource, and index. Explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool docs_append_paragraph by noting that the append option requires no index. This provides unambiguous purpose.

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?

Directly instructs users to 'Prefer docs_append_paragraph if you're just adding to the end (no index required there),' which is an explicit when-to-use alternative. Also explains the style parameter values, giving context for tool selection. No exclusions beyond that, but the guidance is clear.

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