insert_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and return value but does not disclose whether selection is replaced, how the cursor moves after insertion, error behavior for invalid doc_id, or whether formatting is inherited.

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 core action. The Args and Returns sections are structured and free of filler, though Args partly repeats schema field names.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient to issue a call: pass doc_id and text. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisite cursor positioning, interaction with selections, and side effects, which is important given the large sibling set and absence of annotations.

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 adds useful provenance for doc_id ('Document ID from open_document') and identifies text as the content to insert, but this is only minimal clarification beyond the schema's property names.

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 text at the current cursor position.' This is clear and distinguishable from many siblings conceptually, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like replace_text or append_paragraph.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. There are many sibling tools for text manipulation, but the description does not mention when insert_text is preferable over replace_text, append_paragraph, or select_text. The only implicit hint is 'current cursor position.'

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