insert_after_symbol

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the insertion action but omits important behavior such as what happens if the symbol is missing, how duplicate symbols are handled, whether indentation is adjusted, or what the tool returns after a successful insertion.

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 two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and a useful example use case following it. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple mutation tool, it covers the basic operation and typical use case, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it lacks guidance on error behavior, formatting/indentation expectations, and explicit alternatives, and there is no output schema to clarify return values.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context around 'symbol' as a named function/class and typical use for methods/helpers, but it does not add meaningful details about the code parameter format or file path resolution.

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 ('Insert code') and the target ('after a named function or class'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like patch_file or replace_symbol, but the placement detail makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'adding a new method or helper next to a related one.' However, it does not explain when to prefer this over alternatives like patch_file or replace_symbol, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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