insert_image

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the insertion is destructive to existing content, file format requirements, error handling, or permissions needed. Basic behavioral traits like 'inserts' are implied but insufficient.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear list format for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is a mutation without annotations or output schema clarity in description. It lacks information on side effects, success conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., document must be open, para_id must exist). The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful context for all 4 parameters: para_id as the paragraph after which to insert, image_path as absolute path, and width/height_emu with unit conversion hint (914400 = 1 inch). This compensates entirely for the bare 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 action ('Insert an image') and the target resource ('into the document after a paragraph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like insert_text or add_page_break by specifically targeting image insertion and specifying the insertion point relative to a paragraph.

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., insert_text for text). Missing prerequisites such as requiring an open document or valid para_id, and no mention of when not to use it.

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