docs_insert_after

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses case-insensitive substring matching and the rich-formatting default with the rich=False escape hatch. It stops short of specifying behavior when the anchor is absent or appears in multiple paragraphs, which is a minor 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, the matching rule follows, and the formatting default is stated last. Each sentence contributes distinct information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 low-complexity insert tool with an output schema available and a 100% documented input schema, the description is mostly complete. Remaining gaps (multiple matches, no-match error handling) are minor but would make it fully predictable.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `anchor` is matched case-insensitively as a substring and by clarifying that `rich` defaults to native formatting and can be disabled for literal text.

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 states a specific action ('Insert a new paragraph immediately after') with a concrete resource (the paragraph containing `anchor`). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like docs_insert_before and docs_append, even without reading their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: use it when you need to insert text after a specific paragraph identified by an anchor substring. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'after' positioning and anchor-matching rule make the intended usage evident.

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