gsd_insert_phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints that insertion creates a 'decimal phase' (implying no renumbering of existing phases), but it does not explain side effects, persistence, or how the decimal number is determined. The tool is a mutation, yet the description offers minimal insight into consequences.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core action and purpose. There is zero wasted content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks important behavioral context, such as whether existing phase numbers are altered, what the resulting phase number looks like, or any prerequisites. The description is minimally viable but leaves gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify the relationship between 'after' and the decimal phase, nor does it elaborate on the description parameter. The schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 a specific verb ('insert') and resource ('phase'), with a clear scope ('between existing phases') and mechanism ('as decimal phase'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsd_add_phase, which likely appends phases at the end.

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 phrase 'between existing phases' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when urgent work must be slotted into an existing sequence rather than appended. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently distinct from siblings like gsd_add_phase.

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