insert_into_scad

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the insertion action and the two possible positions (start/end), but does not mention potential side effects, error handling (e.g., if the module does not exist), or return behavior. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a usage paragraph and parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 the tool has 4 input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers inputs well but omits the return value or post-conditions. The user might need to know whether the modified code is returned or the effect is in-place. This gap reduces completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, yet the description explains each parameter in detail: scad_code (source code), module_name (module to modify), code_to_insert (code to insert), and position (start/end with default). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, adding significant 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 clearly states 'Insert code into an OpenSCAD module without replacing it', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_scad_module' or 'update_scad_parameter', which are semantically close. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 concrete usage examples ('add ventilation holes', 'add screw holes') and explains that it inserts geometry inside a module. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the context is sufficiently clear for selecting this tool over others.

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