insert_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers comprehensively: auto-backup rotation semantics ('backup=False skips rotation only'), 'atomic validated save', refusal of documents open in Word, numbering-restart behavior, and on-demand numbering.xml creation. This is an exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Roughly 65 words pack purpose, parameter semantics, and behavioral notes with the core purpose front-loaded. The single dense paragraph could separate parameter documentation from behavioral traits structurally, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, backup/atomicity, and a key precondition (refuses Word-open documents). With an output schema present, return values needn't be documented. Minor gaps remain around edge-case failures such as empty items or invalid level values.

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%, and the description compensates thoroughly: items format ('strings or {text, level} dicts (level 0-8 nests)'), kind values ('bullet | number'), location semantics ('picks the insertion point (omit for document end)'), and backup rotation behavior. Only file_path is left implicit, which is acceptable given its self-evident meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('a bulleted or numbered list') with a distinctive detail—'real bullet/number glyphs' and 'numbering.xml infrastructure created as needed'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like insert_paragraphs, create_table, insert_break, and apply_style without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Conveys clear context about what the tool does and its core semantics ('Each call is an independent list, so numbering restarts at 1'). However, it names no sibling alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance against close cousins like insert_paragraphs or apply_style, so selection is left to inference.

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