document_add_header_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and constraint ('OpenAPI 3.x only'), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing definitions), required permissions, error scenarios, or postconditions.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, clearly front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary.

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 simple mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and constraint. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the header definition should be a valid OpenAPI header object, or how it interacts with existing definitions.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Add'), the resource ('reusable header definition'), and the scope ('to the document components (OpenAPI 3.x only)'). It differentiates from sibling tools like document_add_response_header by specifying 'reusable' and 'header definition'.

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 context (OpenAPI 3.x only) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar tools like document_add_response_header or document_add_parameter_definition. The usage is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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