insert_merge_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the insertion location (end of paragraph) but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid para_id), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on document structure.

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 two sentences plus a parameter list, with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 (2 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description still falls short. It does not mention prerequisites, error scenarios, or comparative context among many sibling field-insertion tools.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description explains para_id as 'w14:paraId of the target paragraph' and field_name as 'The merge field name', adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it lacks details like format requirements or allowed values, providing only moderate value.

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 it inserts a MERGEFIELD (mail merge) field at the end of a paragraph, specifying the exact type of field and location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_field' or 'insert_field' which are more generic.

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 such as 'add_field' or 'insert_field'. It does not mention prerequisites, or 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.