insert_icon

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It openly says 'searches' and 'injects,' making the mutation and lookup behavior explicit. It could say more about what happens on failure, whether the icon is appended or replaces content, or how the result is reflected in the document, but it does not mislead.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the action, the resource type, the icon families, or the insertion target.

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?

Inputs and the insertion target are well covered by the description and fully documented schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not state what the tool returns or how the agent can confirm the icon was inserted, leaving a small but real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by identifying the allowed icon libraries and framing `name` as a search term, which goes beyond the schema's examples and helps the agent choose valid values.

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?

States a precise action ('searches and injects') on a specific resource ('vector icon ... directly into a container node in Paper'). Naming Lucide, Phosphor, and Heroicons clearly distinguishes this from media-insertion siblings like insert_curated_media.

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 phrase 'directly into a container node' gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the icon-specific wording provides enough guidance for an agent to select it over non-icon options.

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