replace_paragraph_block_below_header

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool replaces paragraph blocks and avoids modifying TOC, which hints at mutation with a safety constraint. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing content (overwrites vs. merges), error handling, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that states the purpose and key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main action and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a constraint but misses parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a tool that modifies document content, this leaves too many unknowns for an agent.

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 mentions 'bloque de párrafos debajo de un encabezado' which loosely relates to 'header_text' and 'new_paragraphs', but doesn't explain parameter meanings, formats, or constraints (e.g., what 'detect_block_end_fn' does). With 4 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Reemplaza el bloque de párrafos debajo de un encabezado') and the resource (paragraph blocks below headers in documents), with a specific constraint ('evitando modificar TOC'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' by focusing on header-based replacement, but doesn't explicitly compare to other paragraph or header tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for footnotes), or compare to siblings like 'replace_block_between_manual_anchors' or 'delete_paragraph'. The description implies usage for header-adjacent content but lacks explicit context.

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