Add Text After Text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it states the side effect (adds text to cells) and the return value ('Returns True if operation succeeds'). However, it does not clarify prerequisites like file ownership, error behavior when select_text is not found, or whether the original file is mutated in place, leaving important gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences immediately state the action, scope, and return value with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core operation and placement, and the second adds a useful success signal.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin to support correct invocation: it omits parameter rules, selection behavior when no delimiter matches, and clear differentiation from the large sibling set. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing input and usage semantics.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, and the description only gestures at 'specified text', 'target delimiter/selector text', and 'worksheet range'. It does not explain file_uuid, worksheet, or _range semantics or formats, so an agent gets only partial parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Adds') with a clear resource ('text cells in a worksheet range') and a precise placement ('immediately after a target delimiter/selector text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_text_before_text or remove_after_text without ambiguity.

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 operation is described precisely enough to infer when it should be used—when text needs to be inserted after a marker inside cell text—but it never names alternatives or says when not to use it. No explicit exclusion or routing to a sibling tool is provided.

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