insert_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains default position (after), preview mode, and write mode. However, it lacks details on error handling, what happens on symbol not found, or what 'the outline gives the point' means. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key parameters. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is brief. It covers the main use case but omits details on return values, disambiguation of multiple matches, and differentiation from siblings like replace_symbol_body. Fairly minimal for a code modification tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (default position, preview vs write) but does not elaborate on parameters like path, line, or projectPath beyond what the schema already provides. No significant added meaning.

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 inserts text next to a named declaration with specific position options. It distinguishes from the common 'Read-then-Edit' pattern by suggesting this tool as an alternative for adding declarations.

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 explicitly says 'Use instead of Read-then-Edit to add a declaration,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to other siblings like replace_symbol_body.

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