insert_break

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

readOnlyHint=false already flags mutation, but the description adds valuable non-obvious behaviors: auto-backup into prev/anchor slots, backup=False skipping rotation only, atomic validated save, and refusal to operate on documents open in Word. These side effects and constraints go well beyond the annotation.

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 dense but purposeful; it front-loads the core action and then packs relevant details into compact clauses. The heavy use of semicolons and technical shorthand reduces readability slightly, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers break types, placement, backup semantics, save behavior, and an error condition. The main gap is the precise structure expected for the location object, which remains vague despite being a parameter.

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 carries the parameter-documentation burden. It explains type values, backup behavior, and location's role/default. However, the exact shape of the location object is not specified, and file_path is only implied by its name, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Insert a break after the located paragraph.' It then enumerates all supported break types (page, section_next, section_continuous, section_even, section_odd), making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from paragraph/formatting siblings like insert_paragraphs or format_text.

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 gives concrete placement guidance: location picks the paragraph, omit for document end, and section types have distinct semantics. It references set_section_properties as a related tool for section settings. It does not explicitly contrast with insert_paragraphs or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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