insert_paragraphs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals auto-backup in file mode, atomic validated save, track insertion by author, live editing serialization, stale-selector refusal, heading-level semantics, and format cloning minus outline level. This is substantial behavioral context that goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then follows with high-value behavioral details. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or restatement of obvious schema information.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, this description covers a remarkable amount: item shape, heading levels, formatting clone behavior, track/author, backup, save validation, and batch routing. Return value details are appropriately left to the output schema, and only a few parameter-level nuances are left implied rather than explicit.

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 compensate. It explains the paragraphs item structure, location omission behavior, heading_level meaning, inherit_format/copy_format_from behavior, and track/author usage. Minor gaps remain for the exact semantics of live and backup parameter values, but most parameters are meaningfully clarified.

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 and resource ('Insert paragraphs') and immediately defines the item shape, location semantics, and heading behavior. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly indicating batch operations should use apply_edits, and the item schema differentiates it from set/delete text tools.

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 explicit routing guidance for batches ('For batches, use apply_edits') and mentions conditions like file-mode-only for clone formatting and open-document live editing. It does not exhaustively compare with every sibling, but it provides clear context for when insert_paragraphs is appropriate.

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