insert_after_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the diff response, preview vs. applied change, and the tree-sitter fallback for cold/unparseable files. This goes well beyond the basic write semantics implied by the tool name.

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?

Three tightly-written paragraphs; each sentence conveys a distinct, useful point (use case, content formatting, response behavior, fallback). 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?

Explains the response (unified diff) and edge-case behavior, but does not cover symbol-not-found errors or the dirty_ok workflow beyond the schema, and references an out-of-schema parameter.

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 covers all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by advising to include a leading newline in 'content' and mentioning a 'show_write_diff' option, though the latter is not in the schema (additionalProperties true).

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?

Clearly states the action ('Insert text immediately after a symbol's declaration'), specifies the resource (symbol), and differentiates from siblings like insert_before_symbol and replace_symbol_body by the positional scope.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('adding a new method to a struct', 'appending a related helper') that indicate when to apply it. Does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the positional 'after' and sibling tools imply the boundaries.

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