emacs_org_heading_add

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' and does not state that the buffer is mutated, whether insertion defaults to the end, what happens to existing content, or what the tool returns. This is a mutation tool with no safety annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it is so minimal that it omits behavioral context that a more complete description would include.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits insertion behavior, buffer requirements, return value, and failure modes. The rich parameter schema covers field meanings but not the operational context an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented with meaningful text. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the operation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and names the resource ('heading') plus the scope ('org document'). It clearly distinguishes the add operation from sibling heading_update, heading_delete, and heading_move tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of emacs_org_write, emacs_org_heading_update, or emacs_org_capture. The description does not mention prerequisites such as the buffer being open, nor does it explain how after_heading changes insertion behavior.

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