Replace Block Below Header

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait (avoids modifying TOC), but is missing critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations beyond title, the description falls short.

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 excessively concise (one sentence) but omits essential information. Brevity here sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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 complexity of the operation (replacing a block below a header with TOC avoidance), no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks details on block identification, error conditions, and the optional parameter.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters (filename, header_text, new_paragraphs, detect_block_end_fn). The agent is left to guess their purpose and format.

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 replaces a paragraph block below a header while avoiding TOC modification. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like replace_block_between_manual_anchors.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for replacing content below a header without affecting TOC, but does not mention when to choose it over other replacement tools.

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