patch_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic function by revealing important constraints: the requirement for at least two heading segments, the unreachability of top-level headings and headings with literal '::', and the lack of escape syntax. This gives the agent critical knowledge about edge cases and limitations.

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 concise, with three sentences total. It front-loads the main purpose, then addresses constraints with specific examples and an explicit alternative for a common edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 (6 parameters, 2 enums) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and the most important edge cases. It clearly delineates the valid target format and provides an alternative for unsupported targets. No significant information gaps remain for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example of the heading path format ('H1::H2[::H3...]') and reiterating the critical validator behavior, which slightly exceeds what the schema describes. However, it doesn't add much for other parameters, so it doesn't merit a 5.

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: 'Insert content relative to a heading, block, or frontmatter in a file.' This specifies the action (insert), the resource (content in a file), and the context (relative to specific target types), distinguishing it from sibling tools like put_content or append_content which target entire files or append at the end.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating when NOT to use the tool ('Top-level headings (no parent) are unreachable through this tool') and names the alternative ('use get_file_contents + put_content for those edits'). It also warns about a specific edge case (headings containing '::') and explains the path format requirement, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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