insert_floating_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., document modification), error conditions, or permission requirements. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value.

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 very short, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) and does not earn its place with meaningful information beyond the bare action.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 4 required, 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, default behaviors, or the tool's effect on the document. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of parameter documentation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description only mentions the 'wrap' parameter's possible values, leaving all other parameters (para_id, image_path, width_cm, height_cm, h_pos, v_pos) undefined. The agent cannot infer their purpose or constraints.

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 a floating (anchored) image. It distinguishes from siblings like 'insert_image' by specifying 'floating', but lacks explicit differentiation from 'insert_text_box' or other insertion tools. The list of wrap options provides additional context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., para_id must exist) or conditions for use. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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