insert_cross_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It simply states an insertion without detailing side effects, mutation impact, error conditions, or requirements beyond the hinted open_document prerequisite. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies a document.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by argument definitions. It wastes no words, though its brevity borders on under-specification, preventing a higher score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and sparse parameter descriptions, the description does not adequately explain what a cross-reference is, how the command string should be constructed, or what output to expect (despite an existing output schema not shown). An agent lacks critical information to call this reliably.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It adds only 'Document ID from open_document' (common across many tools) and 'Cross-reference command string' with no explanation of the command syntax or expected format. This fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 resource ('Insert a cross-reference field'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like insert_hyperlink or insert_auto_number, though the resource name itself provides reasonable distinction.

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?

Only hints that doc_id comes from open_document, implying a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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