plane-page-insert-image

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool generates a proper component and appends it to page content, indicating an additive, non-destructive action. No hidden effects are mentioned, but the behavior is adequately disclosed for this simple insertion 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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds implementation detail and prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 prerequisite and basic behavior, but with no output schema, it fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., success status, updated page). For a tool with 7 parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter relationships, expected values, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'Insert', identifies the resource 'already-uploaded image asset into a page', and details the outcome: generating an <image-component> element and appending it. This clearly distinguishes from siblings like plane-asset-upload (upload) and plane-page-append-content (general append).

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 the prerequisite 'Upload the image first with plane-asset-upload', providing a clear step-before-use. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool over alternatives like plane-page-append-content or any exclusion criteria.

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