Insert at Section

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

With all annotation hints set to false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), the description compensates by stating the tool is non-destructive ('without replacing it'). It also details the three position behaviors, adding context about insertion points. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, no superfluous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains position options and a concrete use case. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and straightforward input, the description covers what it does, the position variants, and a typical use scenario. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but given the context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'position' enum in plain language ('before', 'after-heading', 'append') and the trailing newline normalization hint for 'content', which goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Insert' and identifies the resource as 'content into a specific section'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like append_to_note (which appends to entire note) and update_section (which replaces), by stating 'without replacing it'. The explanation of position values further clarifies the exact insertion behavior.

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 provides a clear use case: 'add a new bullet or paragraph without rewriting the section.' It implicitly distinguishes from replace_in_note by emphasizing non-replacement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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