onenote_insert_rich_content

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: how headings are rendered (sized bold text), that pre uses Consolas lines, that div is recursed, that multiple root elements are allowed, and the strict XML well-formedness requirement (self-closing void tags, matching open/close tags). It also explains that both html and image_path may be provided. This gives agents a clear understanding of the tool's constraints and rendering behavior.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the primary action, then lists supported blocks, inline elements, and requirements. Every sentence provides new information without redundancy. The length is justified by the complexity of the content format, and the use of lists makes it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what inputs are accepted, how content is interpreted, and the XML constraint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps include not specifying behavior when both html and image_path are provided simultaneously (though 'and/or' suggests both are possible), and not describing error behavior for malformed XML. Overall, it covers the core usage well.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a brief description. However, the main description adds significant semantic value by enumerating supported block and inline elements (h1-h6, p, ul/ol, table, pre, blockquote, div, b, i, u, code, a, span) and the XML parsing requirement, which goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions. It also clarifies the relationship between html and image_path ('and/or'), adding practical guidance.

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 the tool's function: 'Append rich content to a page' with specific content types (XHTML fragment, image). It identifies the resource (page) and the action (append), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like onenote_append_page by emphasizing rich content and supported HTML blocks.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to append rich HTML content or an image to a page. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the detailed list of supported blocks implies when this tool is appropriate compared to simpler append/update tools. Sibling names like onenote_append_page and onenote_update_page suggest basic updates, while this tool is specifically for rich content.

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