word_insert_at_anchor

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it inserts paragraphs, which is consistent. It provides additional context about the insertion being general-purpose and in narrative content, which is valuable.

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 concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the action, and the second provides context. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters, return values, error handling, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it fails to describe any of the 8 parameters (file_path, content, anchor_text, etc.), leaving the agent with no guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 tool inserts paragraphs before/after a matched anchor or paragraph index. It provides context that it is for narrative content with a stable anchor, distinguishing it from replacing entire section. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like word_patch_with_track_changes.

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 gives a clear usage scenario: when a document has a stable anchor paragraph and you do not want to replace the entire section body. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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