r7_insert

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the DOCX file is modified in place or a copy is produced (outputPath hints at a copy but this is unexplained), what happens to existing content at the anchor, or any permission/error behavior. For a 26-parameter mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns most of its place by scoping what formatting can accompany the inserted content, though it borders on restating schema fields.

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 tool with 26 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are far too thin. Missing are mutation semantics (in-place vs outputPath copy), anchor/targetIndex interaction detail, and any cautionary context an agent needs before writing to a document.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter thoroughly. The description adds only a light gloss — that the inserted paragraph can carry alignment, indents, spacing and font — which loosely frames but does not extend the schema's own parameter docs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (insert) and enumerates the resource variants (paragraph, heading, list item, page break) plus the anchor options (start, end, relative to another paragraph). This is clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like r7_edit, r7_replace, or r7_create, so an agent gets no routing signal.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite several siblings that plausibly overlap (r7_edit, r7_replace). The usage is only inferable from the verb and the mention of insertion anchors.

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