derivation_insert_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that the operation is non-mutating ('不改變計算流程') and that subsequent steps are automatically renumbered. It also includes a concrete return example, showing the result shape. It does not cover session_id behavior or error edge cases, so transparency is strong but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, Args, Returns, and Example, and the core purpose appears in the first line. Decorative ASCII lines and emojis add minor visual noise but do not obscure or repeat essential information; the length is justified by the need to explain multiple parameters and provide an example.

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 is largely complete for a note-insertion tool: it explains the purpose, the non-mutating nature, the renumbering side effect, key parameters (except session_id), and provides an example return value. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return fields is acceptable. The main missing piece is explicit differentiation from similar tools like derivation_add_note, which would improve completeness.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section adds essential meaning for most parameters: after_step is explained with the 0-start special case, note content is described, note_type includes all enum values, and related_variables is defined. However, session_id is entirely omitted from the description, which is a notable gap given it is a parameter in the schema.

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's function: inserting an explanation at a specified position in a derivation. It further clarifies this is for supplementing notes mid-derivation without changing the calculation flow, which distinguishes it from note-adding or step-modifying siblings like derivation_add_note. The positional and renumbering details make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly frames the tool as being 'used to supplement explanation' and notes it does not alter the calculation process, giving a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not directly refer to alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of providing full exclusion or alternative guidance.

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