insert_example

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

The description discloses key effects (assigns fresh id, auto-places in free grid slot) and parameter behaviors (prefix match for name, auto-place for position). However, with no annotations, it omits prerequisites (e.g., must have an open buffer) and side effects. More context on buffer state requirements would improve transparency.

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 concise: one sentence for overall purpose, one for usage flow, then a clear args list. No redundant information. Every part earns its place.

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 description explains the tool's action and parameters sufficiently for a user to understand how to use it. However, it does not mention the need for an existing buffer or what the tool returns (though an output schema exists). Minor gap in operational context prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description covers all four parameters with meaningful details beyond the schema's type/default definitions: control_id (control type or node-id), name (prefix match, omit for first), tab_index (which tab), position (optional array or null, auto-place). This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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's function: dropping a documented control example into the buffer with a fresh id and grid slot. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_control by referencing list_control_examples as the browse step, implying this tool is for predefined examples.

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 a usage flow: 'Browse with list_control_examples, then place one here.' It implies when to use this tool (after finding an example) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like add_control for custom controls. This leaves some ambiguity but is generally helpful.

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