insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: SVG is inlined as editable vector with namespaced ids, raster images are embedded or linked via embed=False, and the aspect ratio is preserved when scaling. It omits any mutation-safety context (what happens on overwrite, effect of expected_revision, permission needs), so it is only partly transparent for a write operation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core placement action before the format-specific details. Every clause conveys information, though the second sentence packs three distinct behaviors into one long statement.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it never explains id, label, parent, show, or the revision-guard parameter, nor what the tool returns or whether an existing element is replaced. A caller could place a file correctly but could not safely use the identity or concurrency parameters.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies x_mm/y_mm (top-left origin), width_mm/height_mm (mutually alternative, aspect-preserving), and embed, but leaves id, show, label, parent, and the concurrency-critical expected_revision entirely unexplained.

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 name 'insert' is generic on its own, but the description immediately names the specific action and resource: placing a figure file into the document, with format-dependent handling of .svg vs .png/.jpg. It differentiates somewhat from format-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly addresses the closely related 'add_svg' tool, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many siblings (add_svg, render, export). The 'embed=False links the file instead' clause describes a flag, not a situation that should steer the agent to this tool over another.

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