insert_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain what happens to the document, whether the inserted file is embedded or linked, supported file types, permission needs, reversibility, or any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, with parameter details placed in a compact list. There is no fluff or repeated content, though the main description could arguably be slightly more informative.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers both parameters and their basic relationship to an open document. However, it omits practical context such as supported file formats, insertion location, and failure conditions, making it minimally viable but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define doc_id as 'Document ID from open_document' and file_path as 'Path to the file to insert', but file_path adds little beyond the schema and no details about path formats or constraints are provided.

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 states a clear action ('Insert another file into the document') with a specific resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like insert_text and insert_picture by the file-level focus, though it does not specify whether this means embedding an object or importing content.

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 tool provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only contextual signal is that doc_id comes from open_document, which implies an open document is required, but no exclusions or comparison to other insert tools are given.

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