docs_insert_segment_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it inserts text but does not disclose behavior regarding the index parameter (e.g., insert position, default behavior), permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, efficient. Could optionally mention index but remains appropriately sized.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is sparse. It doesn't cover index usage, return values, or edge cases, making it incomplete for agents to confidently invoke.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful context for segment_id by indicating it comes from docs_add_header/footer, but leaves index unexplained and text/document_id are self-evident. The index parameter's semantics (default 0, what position) are absent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('header/footer/footnote segment'), and mentions the source of segment_id, clearly distinguishing it from docs_insert_text for body content. It is concise and 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?

It clearly implies usage for header/footer/footnote segments and cites docs_add_header/footer for obtaining segment_id, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like docs_insert_text.

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