insert_markdown_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'Insert' and 'automatic formatting.' It does not mention that replaceContent defaults to true and would replace existing frame content, nor any other mutation or failure behavior. This leaves a potentially destructive default hidden from an agent choosing or invoking the 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?

Two short sentences with the key action and object first, followed by concrete syntax examples. There is no filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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?

The schema documents all five parameters and covers prerequisites for frameIndex, so the tool is callable, but the description omits the replace-vs-append default and there is no return-value guidance or explicit alternative routing. For a mutating 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds value by specifying accepted markdown syntax ('# headers, **bold**, *italic*'). It also explains that formatting reuses existing paragraph and character styles, which clarifies why no style parameters are required. It does not add parameter-level detail for pageIndex/frameIndex/replaceContent, but the schema already covers those.

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 states a specific verb ('Insert'), a target resource ('text frame'), and a distinctive behavior ('automatic formatting using existing paragraph and character styles'). It clearly separates this tool from siblings like get_text_content, create_text_frame, and apply_paragraph_style. The markdown examples further pin down the tool's 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?

The description implies the use case—inserting markdown-formatted content into an existing frame—but never names alternatives or states when not to use it. The frameIndex parameter description in the schema gives a prerequisite, but the tool description itself provides no explicit routing versus edit_text_frame or clean_imported_text. This is adequate implied guidance, not explicit selection criteria.

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