insert_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It details break_before options, formatting application (bold/italic/underline), and style/char_style effects. It also advises using list_styles to avoid guessing, adding practical context.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the action, followed by parameter details in a bullet-like format. It is concise without unnecessary words, though some parameter explanations could be more compact.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers all key parameters and behaviors. It explains insertion at the end, formatting, and style application. Missing details like return value are acceptable since output schema is absent.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role and valid values (e.g., break_before options, style names). It provides usage examples like 'Heading 1' and 'Emphasis', which adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Append text at the end of a Writer document', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_text and find_and_replace by focusing on insertion at the end.

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 implies usage through parameter explanations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_styles or get_text. No 'when-not' or alternative tool references are provided.

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