insert_after_block_fs_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains block ID format, performance, and return type, but lacks detail on error handling, side effects, and whether content insertion creates a new line. Ambiguities remain.

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 (10 lines) with clear sections (When to use, Performance, Returns). Each sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with the core 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, performance, and return type, but lacks details on error cases (e.g., block not found), exact insertion behavior, and return value structure. With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating that block_id can omit the ^ prefix, which the schema already states.

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 tool's purpose: 'Insert content immediately after a block reference.' It explains block references and differentiates from sibling tools like insert_after_heading_fs_tool by specifying block-level insertion.

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 'When to use' section lists relevant scenarios (e.g., adding follow-up content, expanding paragraphs). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use sibling tools like insert_after_heading_fs_tool.

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