arango_insert

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'Insert a document,' which aligns with the destructive nature but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like error handling, permissions needed, or idempotency. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotations.

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 is a single, direct sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while clearly stating the purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple insertion with 2 parameters), annotations cover destructive behavior, and schema fully documents inputs. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values or success/failure responses, leaving gaps in completeness for a mutation tool.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining document structure constraints or collection naming rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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') and target ('a document into a collection'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like arango_update or arango_remove, which also modify collections, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its specific role.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arango_update or arango_remove, nor does it mention prerequisites such as collection existence. It lacks explicit context for usage decisions, relying solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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