Doco Insert Blocks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. It adds context about server-side matching for after_heading and six positioning modes, which helps the agent understand behavioral nuances beyond the raw schema. It doesn't mention side effects like version conflicts or whether base_version is required for optimistic locking, but annotations already cover the write risk profile.

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 one sentence that front-loads the core operation and then packs all critical positioning modes into a compact list. Every part earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 the key behavioral choice (position modes) well, but omits caveats such as whether inserting requires an existing document, how base_version is used for protected writes, or error conditions like duplicate headings. With an output schema present and annotations present, it's mostly complete, but a note about version conflict behavior would strengthen it.

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%, so parameters like nodes, position, document_id, base_version are documented in the schema. The description adds important meaning to 'position' by enumerating the six allowed strategies and giving an example ({ after_heading: "部署流程" }), which the schema's additionalProperties does not convey. This is valuable semantic enrichment.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('insert') and resource ('blocks') at a specified position, clearly distinguishing it from read/list/patch/delete siblings. The position enum is listed in Chinese, which is explicit but the title is tautological; still the description provides concrete positioning options.

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 implies usage by enumerating position strategies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like doco_patch_block or doco_batch_edit. No explicit exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer based on the verb 'insert'.

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