insert_break

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it reveals auto-backup mechanics, the effect of backup=False, atomic validated saving, and refusal to operate on Word-locked documents. This goes well beyond a generic 'insert' statement, though it stops short of describing permissions, reversibility, or exact return behavior.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the main action and then layering type semantics, location guidance, backup behavior, and a practical constraint. The use of semicolons and short clauses packs information without losing readability, though the backup sentence is slightly cryptic.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: break types, location, backup behavior, save guarantees, and a Word-lock failure mode. It does not spell out the structure of the location object, but otherwise gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates: it explains the type values (page, section_next, section_continuous, etc.), clarifies that location selects a paragraph or defaults to document end, and interprets backup=False as skipping rotation only. file_path remains implicit, but its role is obvious from the tool name and required status.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a break after the located paragraph.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling paragraph-editing tools by focusing on page and section breaks, and it names the exact break type variants. The reference to set_section_properties further clarifies the domain without confusing it with inserting paragraphs.

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 gives clear operational context: type selects page vs section behavior, location targets a paragraph or the document end, and backup toggles rotation behavior. It does not explicitly state when to prefer insert_break over insert_paragraphs or other siblings, but its scope is evident and it points to set_section_properties for related section configuration.

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