insert_paragraph

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and is destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds context about ODT positional ID behavior and DOCX tracked changes, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence covers the main purpose and mechanism. The second sentence adds important warnings and surface behavior. While efficient, it could be improved with line breaks or bullet points for readability.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and three supported formats, the description covers key constraints (ODT ID shifting, DOCX tracked changes) but leaves parameter semantics vague. It is moderately complete but could include more details on parameter usage and return behavior.

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 description coverage is 43%, with descriptions only for file_path, google_doc_id, and style_source_id. Required parameters (positional_anchor_node_id, new_string, instruction) lack schema descriptions. The description clarifies positional_anchor_node_id via 'anchor paragraph by paragraph id' but does not explain new_string or instruction. The style_source_id parameter is explained in schema, so the description adds limited value here.

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), the resource (paragraph), the positioning mechanism (before/after an anchor paragraph by paragraph id), and the supported formats (DOCX, ODT, Google Docs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_comment or replace_text.

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 specifies supported document types and gives a critical warning about ODT paragraph IDs being positional and shifting after insertion, advising re-read before further edits. It also mentions that DOCX insertions emit tracked changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, earning a 4 instead of 5.

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