add_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the insertion action and parameter descriptions, but does not mention side effects, destructiveness, permissions, error conditions, or impact on track changes. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 and well-structured, starting with the main action, followed by common examples, then parameter details. The Args section is clear, and there is no redundant or irrelevant 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 the existence of an output schema, return values are not needed in the description. However, the description misses context on when to use this general tool versus specialized field inserters among siblings. It also does not mention document state requirements, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand usage context.

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 provides clear explanations for each parameter: para_id as target paragraph identifier, field_code as instruction text, and cached_value as optional display text. It also lists example field codes. Since the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 inserts a Word field at the end of a paragraph, which is a specific verb+resource. It provides examples of common field codes. However, it does not distinguish this general field insertion tool from sibling tools that insert specific field types like insert_merge_field or insert_date_field, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over specific field inserters. An agent has no basis to choose between this and siblings like insert_merge_field.

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