wps_word_add_section_break

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the action (insert section break), default type, and notes that WPS paragraph page breaks also create sections. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing formatting, whether the operation is undoable, or if the document must be open). The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and use case, the second clarifies the default and notes an alternative behavior. No wasted words.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, default, and a relevant note about paragraph breaks. It could mention that the document must be open, but that is implied by the tool family. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple operation.

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 schema has 100% coverage (one parameter with enum and description). The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default type ('默认 next_page') and providing context about when to use different types. This extra information helps the agent choose the correct parameter 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 action ('在文末插入分节符' – insert section break at end of document) and the specific use case ('分节封面'等需要独立页码/页脚的场景). It also specifies the default type. This is a specific verb+resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'wps_word_probe_sections' or 'wps_word_insert_text'.

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 a clear usage scenario (independent page numbers/footers) and mentions that paragraph page breaks also create new sections, implying this tool is for explicit control. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or list alternative tools (e.g., 'wps_word_insert_text' for manual page breaks).

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