index_insert

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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description carries substantial extra context: the insert is done as tracked insertions, the field is left marked dirty so fields.update will not populate it, and Word requires F9 to build entries/page numbers. It also states the return value, all of which goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and efficient overall; the middle sentence about the dirty field is dense but earns its place as essential behavioral context. No filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets created (tracked insertions), how the field behaves, and what it returns. Minor gaps remain (e.g., permissions or reversibility), but it is largely complete.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters (doc, after, title, author, tag, dry_run, expect). The description adds workflow meaning around the field/title behavior but little parameter-specific syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Insert an index (an INDEX field) after a body paragraph'), and the reference to index.mark marks differentiates it from the sibling entry-marking tool. An agent can tell what it produces (a field plus title and closing paragraph) without opening the schema.

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 mention that Word builds entries and page numbers 'from the index.mark marks (F9)' implies the prerequisite workflow with the sibling index_mark, giving clear context. It stops short of an explicit 'use this after marking entries / not for X' statement, so it's clear-but-not-exhaustive rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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