insert_after_symbol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool operates in preview mode by default ('Default PREVIEW') and that setting apply=true commits the change. It also states that the outline provides the insertion point, eliminating the need to read the file. This is transparent about key behaviors.

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 three sentences long, each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, insertion point source, and preview/write behavior. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality well: what it inserts, where, and the preview/write toggle. However, it does not address the optional parameters like projectPath, backend, and maxResults, which may be unclear to the agent. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the main use case.

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 63%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds value by noting the preview default and that the outline supplies the insertion point, but it does not explain the non-required parameters (e.g., projectPath, backend, maxResults). Thus, it only marginally improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool inserts text after a named declaration, using phrases like 'Insert text on a new line AFTER a named declaration' and 'e.g. add a sibling function/method'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like insert_before_symbol (before) and replace_symbol_body (replace).

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 provides clear context on when to use by specifying 'use outline to find insertion point' and noting that no prior file read is needed. It also distinguishes preview mode from write mode. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct mention of alternative tools.

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