md_insert_after_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the sibling-placement behavior and the concurrency warning, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens if the heading is not found, whether insertion is idempotent, or what the return/error behavior is, so transparency is only partial.

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 repeats itself: 'Insert content after the full section body (sibling placement)' appears twice, and the preference for md_insert_after_heading is stated twice with inconsistent naming ('md.insert_after_heading' vs 'md_insert_after_heading'). This redundancy wastes tokens and reduces clarity.

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 tool is fairly simple with three required string parameters, and the description includes an example, a usage rule, and a concurrency warning. Still, it omits key context such as what happens when the target heading does not exist, whether the heading must match exactly, and what the tool returns or reports on success or failure.

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?

The schema itself provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It offers a complete example mapping content, path, and heading, which clarifies their shapes. However, it does not specify the exact expected format of the heading parameter beyond the example showing '## Config', and it does not describe each parameter explicitly.

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 clearly states the action: insert content after the full section body, with sibling placement. It also differentiates itself from md_insert_after_heading by specifying that the sibling tool is for content directly under the heading line. This distinguishes it well from closely related sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use when adding a new ## section after this section's content') and when to prefer the alternative ('Prefer md_insert_after_heading for content under the heading line'). It also warns against concurrent calls and directs the agent to execute_plan for multi-op atomicity, providing clear operational guidance.

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