insert_section_break

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: the break is tracked, existing page setup and header/footer relationship references are preserved, inheritance of non-relationship properties defaults on, and — most importantly — section indexes shift after success, requiring a re-read. Return format is unstated, but the actions needed to stay consistent are.

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 verb+resource is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct piece of information (preservation, inheritance, override, follow-up). It is dense and information-packed rather than padded, though the parameter detail could be tightened slightly.

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 mutating tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers the important ground: tracked-change behavior, preservation semantics, inheritance defaults, override options, and the index-invalidation side effect. Only error conditions and explicit sibling routing remain uncovered, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine interpretation: inherit_properties resets only non-relationship properties (header/footer refs always preserved), and new_section supplies optional page-number/page-size/margin overrides for the following section. This clarifies the interaction between the two parameters in ways the schema properties alone do not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Insert a tracked DOCX section break') with the anchoring condition ('after a stable direct-body paragraph'). This is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_sections and from format_section, which modifies an existing section rather than inserting a boundary.

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?

Provides operational context: default inheritance behavior, how to opt out via inherit_properties=false, and the explicit follow-up 'Call get_sections again after success because section indexes change.' It does not, however, contrast this tool with alternatives like insert_paragraph or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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