insert_child

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses auto-layout behavior (keeps child in flow as layoutPositioning AUTO unless ignoreAutoLayout is true), which is real behavioral context. But it omits whether the child is detached from any prior parent, permission/auth requirements, and failure modes for a mutation that clearly repositions an existing node.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the index default and the auto-layout caveat. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and two parameters well. Gaps remain on reparenting side effects, the layoutSizing parameters, and error conditions, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 low (33%), so the description should compensate more. It clarifies index (optional, appends when omitted) and ignoreAutoLayout (controls auto-layout flow behavior), but says nothing about layoutSizingVertical/layoutSizingHorizontal beyond the enum hint in the schema, and adds nothing for parentId/childId.

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?

States a specific verb (insert) plus resource (existing child node) and scope (at an index inside a parent container). The word 'existing' usefully signals this is not node creation, distinguishing it from create_rectangle/create_frame, though it never names the closest siblings (reparent_node, move_node, append_to_slot) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 clause 'Omit index to append at the end' gives concrete usage guidance for one parameter's default behavior. However, it offers no when-to-use versus alternatives (reparent_node, move_node, clone_node_into_parent) and no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving routing between the several node-placement tools to inference.

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