propose_insert_block

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The name 'propose_' and the opening word 'Stage' hint that this is a proposal, not a direct mutation, but the description never clarifies what staging means (e.g., that changes are not applied until apply_changes is called, or that it is non-destructive). It also does not mention permissions, reversibility, or concurrency checks (despite having a doc_hash param). The behavioral information is thin and leaves critical operational details implicit.

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 compact — three sentences — and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The parameter breakdown is efficient and read naturally. It avoids redundancy and focuses on essential distinctions. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'position' and 'kind' definitions, but overall it is well-structured and to the point.

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 tool is a 'propose' operation within a change-management workflow, as evidenced by siblings like apply_changes, discard_changes, and get_changes. The description does not explain how this proposed insertion integrates with that workflow (e.g., what the return value is, how to confirm it, or whether it conflicts with an existing proposal). An output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description does not mention the doc_hash's role in optimistic concurrency. Critical workflow context is missing for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explicitly documents the 'position' and 'kind' values, and indirectly explains the anchor_id via positioning. However, it does not explain 'path', 'text', 'level', or 'doc_hash' — even though 'level' is noted as being set for headings, the description does not state that level applies to 'heading' kind or that text is the content. The coverage is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Stage inserting') and resource ('new block') with clear positioning relative to an anchor element. It explicitly enumerates the supported block kinds and positions ('before'/'after'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that replace or delete content by the verb 'insert'. The scope is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 clear usage context: it covers insert-before, insert-after, and append (via anchoring on the last element with position='after'). It directly tells the agent how to achieve append without a dedicated append tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the sibling set makes that inference straightforward. The guidance is practical and adequate.

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