add_text_after_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the operation and return value (True on success). It does not disclose whether the original file is modified, how missing delimiter text is handled, authentication needs, or other side effects.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the purpose and includes only essential information. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks details on range defaults, target-not-found behavior, file scope, and side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces return-format burden, but the behavioral gaps remain significant.

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?

The description adds meaning by mapping 'text' to the text to insert, 'select_text' to the target delimiter/selector, and 'worksheet range' to _range/worksheet. However, file_token is not explained, and optional/default semantics of _range and worksheet are absent, so the compensation for 0% schema coverage is incomplete.

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'), names the resource ('text cells in a worksheet range'), and specifies placement ('immediately after a target delimiter/selector text'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_text_before_text or add_text_at_tail.

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, no conditions, and no exclusions. It implies usage context but never states 'use this when...' or mentions when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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