insert_header_near_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action ('Insert a header') and parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to the document, error handling, or what happens if the target text is not found. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then detailing parameters. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes from parameter lists).

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's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects on the document, error cases). For a tool with no structured safety hints, this is a notable gap.

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 adds meaning by explaining all 6 parameters, including optional ones, default values, and constraints (e.g., position as 'before' or 'after', header_style default 'Heading 1'). This goes beyond the schema, though it could provide more context on parameter interactions.

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 specific action ('Insert a header'), specifies the resource ('before or after the target paragraph'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on header insertion with style options, unlike tools like 'add_heading' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text' which have different purposes.

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 implies usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Specify by text or paragraph index'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_heading' or 'insert_line_or_paragraph_near_text'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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