insert_form_control

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a control is inserted; it doesn't disclose side effects, error behavior, document state requirements, or whether the control is added at the cursor, selected position, or some default location. 'Insert' implies mutation but provides no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by giving concrete examples of acceptable control types, though it remains terse relative to the tool's complexity.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation in the description, the definition is incomplete. It provides neither usage context nor behavioral expectations; the agent would need to infer or experiment to call this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters, but it only enumerates possible control_type values. doc_id, name, width, height, and tooltip are left entirely to their property names, with no explanation of required/preferred formats or how they affect the inserted control.

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 names a specific action (insert) and resource (form control) and lists supported control types (button, checkbox, combobox, edit, listbox), so the agent knows what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from related sibling tools like set_form_properties or delete_ctrl, but the insertion verb and type list make the primary purpose 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, or about prerequisites such as an open document or a selected position. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for adding controls, and there are no exclusions or conditions to disambiguate it from form-related siblings.

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