insert_merge_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation ('insert') and location ('end of paragraph'), but lacks details on error handling, preconditions (e.g., para_id existence), or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is extremely concise, with a single sentence for purpose and a clear list for arguments. No wasted words; front-loaded with 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?

For a simple insert tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: insertion location and arguments. It could mention return values or edge cases, but the existing output schema mitigates the need. Fairly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines 'para_id' as the w14:paraId of the target paragraph and 'field_name' as the merge field name (e.g., 'FirstName'), adding meaningful context beyond schema names.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inserts a MERGEFIELD (mail merge) field at the end of a paragraph. It specifies the verb 'Insert' and the resource 'MERGEFIELD', and distinguishes itself from other field-related siblings like 'add_field' or 'insert_date_field' by focusing on mail merge.

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?

Usage is implied for mail merge scenarios, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_field', 'insert_text'). No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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