insert_near_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention error handling (e.g., symbol not found), side effects, or permissions, offering only a terse one-liner.

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?

A single sentence of 6 words is extremely concise, but it sacrifices meaningful content. Front-loads the core action effectively.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is vastly under-specified. It omits return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances, failing to provide a complete context for usage.

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 low (40%) with critical params (symbol_name, content, file_path) lacking descriptions. The description partially clarifies 'position' via 'before or after' but adds no new details for other fields, insufficiently compensating for the schema gaps.

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) and the resource (content before or after an indexed symbol), distinguishing it from editing siblings like edit_lines_in_symbol or replace_symbol_source.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_lines_in_symbol for line-level edits). No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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