inserir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that 'ancora' must match a snippet in exactly one block (implying ambiguity handling), that warnings are surfaced, and that titles belong in a parameter rather than the body. It says nothing about permissions, failure behavior when the anchor is not found, or side effects of the mutation.

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 size is moderate and most sentences carry real instruction, but structure is poor: the core purpose sentence is buried in the second paragraph behind a run of process reminders, and parameter notes are interleaved with workflow advice. Front-loading the what/where would improve it substantially.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably rich on workflow but incomplete on specifics: attachment semantics, page identifier meaning, and the shape of the response/warnings are all left implicit. It is usable but not self-sufficient.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'ancora' (unique snippet or #id) and 'posicao' (antes/depois) clearly and gives content-writing guidance for 'conteudo,' but leaves 'pagina_id' and the 'anexos' array wholly undocumented in the description.

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 second paragraph states a specific verb and scope: "Insere ONMD antes ou depois de um bloco," which tells an agent it inserts content at a block anchor rather than appending to a page. The distinction from siblings like 'acrescentar' or 'editar' is implied by the before/after-block scoping but never named explicitly, and the term ONMD is left unexplained.

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?

It gives concrete prerequisites and process conditions: read the spec via ler_spec before writing, read the page via ler_pagina "se ainda não leu," make the smallest edit, and re-read after structural edits. These are actionable usage cues, though it never states when to prefer this tool over 'acrescentar' or 'editar,' so exclusions are absent.

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