propose_insertion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the key trait that the proposal is staged and later 'applied with apply_rewrite,' implying reversibility via discard/revert siblings. It says nothing about permissions, validation of the claim/sentence target, or what happens if the anchor sentence doesn't exist.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. 'like any rewrite' is slightly vague but functional, and nothing is wasted.

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?

The description covers the core action and its follow-up step, which is the most important missing piece for a staged-mutation tool. It omits what the call returns (a rewrite handle?) and how the proposal is inspected or discarded, which the sibling set suggests matters.

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 50%: new_text and after_claim_id are documented, while note and language are undocumented in both places, and the description does not compensate. It also loosely calls the anchor an 'existing sentence' when the parameter is a claim_id, adding only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 and effect: 'Propose new text after an existing sentence,' which is clearly distinct from the sibling propose_rewrite (which replaces existing text rather than inserting). It does not name propose_rewrite explicitly, but the insertion semantics are unambiguous.

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 second sentence ('Applied with apply_rewrite like any rewrite') gives useful workflow context — that this stages a change rather than committing it. However, it never states when to choose this over propose_rewrite, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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