insert_text_after

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that this inserts only a 'simple text block' (plain text, not rich-text structures), but says nothing about permissions, ordering behavior when siblings exist, or what happens if block_id is invalid.

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 summary sentence comes first and the parameter notes are compact. The 'Args:' formatting is docstring boilerplate rather than agent-optimized prose, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a write tool with three parameters of which one is an enumerated type, the definition omits placement rules and failure modes that would let an agent call it correctly on the first try.

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 0%, so the Args block is doing real work: it identifies what block_id and text mean and, critically, lists allowed block_type values (paragraph, heading_1, heading_2, heading_3, bulleted/numbered list, quote) that the schema does not enumerate. However, it does not specify the text format (plain vs. markdown), length limits, or whether block_type is ignored for existing-block targets, so meaning is only partly added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a simple text block after a specific block.' The word 'simple' and the singular 'block' implicitly separate it from richer siblings like insert_blocks_after, but the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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 guidance at all. The agent is not told when to prefer this over insert_blocks_after (multi-block inserts) or append_blocks_to_page (end-of-page appends), nor whether the target block must be a direct child of a specific parent.

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