insert_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals auto-backup rotation behavior, atomic validated saving, refusal to operate on documents open in Word, and the fact that page numbers are generated when fields update. These are non-obvious and safety-relevant behaviors.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by backup/save behavior and the open-document guard; every clause adds necessary information.

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?

The description covers the main operation, field-update behavior, backup and save semantics, and the open-document refusal. An output schema exists to convey return details. The main gap is the opaque after_index parameter and some other parameter semantics, but the tool is callable with reasonable confidence.

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 explain the eight parameters. It clarifies backup behavior ('backup=False skips rotation only') and indirectly relates field updates to update_on_open, but after_index, letter_headings, at_end, and columns receive no meaningful explanation. Too many parameters are left to inference.

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 the INDEX field compiling all XE entries with page numbers'. This distinguishes insert_index from sibling tools such as mark_index_entry and insert_toc by naming the exact Word field and its source data.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after XE entries exist and when a compiled index with page numbers is needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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