insert_line_or_paragraph_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 mentions the action ('insert') and optional style matching, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the insertion modifies the document permanently, what happens if the target text isn't found, error handling, or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key parameters, and the second lists args. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the arg list is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated for efficiency.

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 complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses critical context like error conditions, return values, side effects, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 lists all 6 parameters with brief hints (e.g., 'optional', 'before or after'), adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., using target_text vs. target_paragraph_index), valid values for line_style, or format details, leaving gaps in understanding.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('insert a new line or paragraph') and resources ('before or after the target paragraph'), and it distinguishes the action from siblings like 'add_paragraph' by specifying positional insertion near text. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'insert_header_near_text' or 'insert_numbered_list_near_text' beyond the line/paragraph focus.

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 by mentioning 'specify by text or paragraph index' and listing optional parameters, which suggests when to use certain arguments. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'add_paragraph' or 'insert_header_near_text', and it doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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