insert_page_break

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the break is appended to the body but not that at the cursor or mid-document may be impossible, nor whether the call mutates the saved document or requires a live connection. For a one-line mutation tool this is a partial disclosure.

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 with the action and the location constraint front-loaded; no filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 trivial single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema this is close to sufficient, but it omits whether the change is persisted (save_document semantics) and whether placement is truly limited to the body end.

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?

Only one optional parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the 'optional when only one document is connected' fallback. The description adds nothing about documentId, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Insert) and resource (page break) plus a placement constraint (end of the document body), so an agent can predict the effect precisely. It is not explicitly differentiated from any sibling, but no sibling in the list does this operation.

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 never states when to use this versus other insertion tools (insert_paragraph, insert_table) or any preconditions. The placement note ('at the end of the document body') is the only scoping hint and it is about behavior, not selection.

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