insert_content_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the mutation safety profile ('atomic validated save'), the backup mechanism with exact slot names and the meaning of backup=False, the refusal behavior for unsupported control types, and the constraint about documents open in Word. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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 dense but every clause carries necessary operational or selection information. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds refusal rules, follow-up routing, and backup/safety behavior in a logical order. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and the complete absence of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation tool, this description covers creation semantics, constraints, refusal cases, alternatives, backup behavior, and open-document refusal. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. There are no material gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains after_anchor as literal plain paragraph text, occurrence as which anchor match to use, tag as unique and refused if it exists, alias and initial text as optional, and backup as skipping rotation when false. Virtually every parameter's semantic role is clarified beyond its bare name and type.

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 ('insert'), a precise resource ('new PLAIN-TEXT content control / inline SDT'), and an exact placement ('right after after_anchor text'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like set_content_control_value and fill_form_fields by framing creation versus later filling, and by specifying the supported control type.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool, what it cannot do (checkbox/dropdown/date/picture/gallery/repeating controls are refused), and points to alternatives for both those unsupported controls and for later filling of the created control. It also gives concrete operational constraints: unique tag required, backup behavior, and refusal when the document is open in Word.

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