insert_at_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Supports negative indices' which adds useful behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether the operation is idempotent, error handling for out-of-bounds indices, or performance characteristics for large texts.

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 extremely concise with two clear sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description lacks context about the tool's role among siblings and behavioral expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'index' parameter supports negative values but doesn't explain what 'text' and 'insertion' parameters represent or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names in the 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 text at index position') and the resource ('text'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_range or replace_range. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like split_at_indices that might also manipulate text positions.

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 like replace_range or insert operations in other tools. It mentions 'without replacing' but doesn't clarify scenarios where insertion versus replacement is appropriate.

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