insert_index_mark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool mutates the document by inserting an entry, but it does not describe side effects, insertion position, prerequisites, or return behavior. This is thin for a mutation operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation, followed by a clean, minimal parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple three-parameter insert tool, the core call information is present and the output schema covers return semantics. However, with no annotations and no usage context, it leaves unstated where the index mark is inserted, whether a cursor position matters, and what document state is required.

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 so by giving each parameter a meaningful role: doc_id is the source document, first is the primary term, and second is an optional secondary term. This adds value beyond the bare property names in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Insert an index mark entry.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from close siblings like insert_bookmark or insert_hyperlink, even though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many other insert-related siblings, such as insert_bookmark or insert_auto_number. The only context is that doc_id comes from open_document, which hints at a prerequisite but does not explain conditions or exclusions.

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