wps_word_add_page_numbers

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

No annotations are provided, but the description clearly discloses the dynamic nature of the PAGE field, section linking behavior, and the requirement to call the tool for each section. It does not cover error cases (e.g., invalid section_index) or behavior when a section already has content, which are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured examples and a critical warning. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence serves a purpose; the structure aids comprehension.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case thoroughly, references a relevant sibling tool (wps_word_probe_sections), and explains parameter interactions. It lacks information about error handling and return values, but these are minor omissions for a tool with this complexity.

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 each parameter is already described in the input schema. The description adds significant meaning by providing example parameter combinations for real use cases, explaining interactions (e.g., restart with link_to_previous:false), and clarifying defaults and intent beyond the schema's isolated descriptions.

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 the tool adds auto page numbers (PAGE field) to section footers with alignment options. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by providing a specific, non-overlapping function; no other sibling tool handles page numbering.

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 explicitly outlines when to use the tool with a detailed thesis numbering workflow (cover, preface, body) and warns about the common pitfall of section linking inheritance. It also recommends using wps_word_probe_sections for section structure, providing clear contextual guidance.

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