insert_if_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states the insertion happens at the end of a paragraph, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, what happens if the paragraph ID is invalid, or whether the tool is idempotent. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 stating the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No superfluous content.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description omits preconditions (e.g., document must be open, paragraph must exist), error conditions, and whether the insertion is persistent. The parameter explanations are good but not enough for full 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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description's parameter list adds meaningful context: para_id is a w14:paraId, condition is an expression like 'x > 0', and true_text/false_text are display texts. This compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool inserts a 'Word IF conditional field' at the end of a paragraph, specifying the verb 'Insert' and the specific resource 'IF conditional field', distinguishing it from generic field insertion tools like insert_field or add_field.

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 implicitly suggests usage for inserting conditional fields, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insert_field or add_cross_reference. No when-not 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.