insert_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states a generic 'inserts text' without explaining default behavior (e.g., whether it replaces existing content by default, as the append parameter suggests), how frameIndex selects a frame, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple parameters.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It effectively communicates the core action in the fewest possible words, which is ideal.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It omits key details such as the default frame index, how insertion position works, and what happens if the frame does not exist. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation in complex scenarios.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the semantic difference between 'insert' and 'replace' or how the append parameter modifies behavior, which could be considered a gap but is compensated by the schema's explicit parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'inserts' and identifies the resource 'text frame' within the 'active document'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_frame_text (which likely replaces entire text) and replace_text (which targets specific content). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_frame_text or replace_text. It lacks any explicit context about selection of the frame or position of insertion, so an agent has no guidance on selecting it over sibling tools.

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