Insert content at a heading or block

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral responsibility. It notes that the tool does not rewrite the whole note, which is useful. However, it lacks details like whether missing targets are created, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and include a helpful example. Every word contributes, and no unnecessary details are present.

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 5 required parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits return values, error behavior, and what happens if the target doesn't exist, making it incomplete for full understanding.

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 60%, and the schema already describes most parameters. The description adds a concrete example showing parameter usage, but does not elaborate on values or edge cases, providing only modest added value.

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 inserts content relative to a heading, block, or frontmatter field without rewriting the whole note. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the example differentiates it from full-note rewriting tools like update_note.

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 explains when to use (targeted insertion without rewriting whole note) and gives a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings like append_to_note or update_note, leaving some ambiguity.

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