insert_under_heading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'without modifying the rest', which conveys non-destructive behavior to surrounding content. However, it fails to disclose behavior when the heading is missing, when multiple matching headings exist, or what the response looks like, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no irrelevant filler.

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 is adequate for the core use case and mentions non-destructive behavior, but with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves edge cases (e.g., missing heading, parameter interactions) unaddressed. It is complete enough for a straightforward task but not for full operational clarity.

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% for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema—it does not explain interactions like createHeadingIfMissing with headingLevel or the default heading level behavior.

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 uses the specific verb 'Insert content' and identifies the exact target 'under a specific heading in a note'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_to_note or replace_in_note by specifying the insertion point.

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?

'Useful for adding content to specific sections without modifying the rest' provides clear when-to-use context and implies not using it for whole-note edits. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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