bates_number

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. Missing details include whether the stamp overwrites existing footers, whether it is idempotent, and what errors occur for invalid inputs. The output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but behavior beyond input/output is absent.

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 extremely concise at 5 lines, with a clear main sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. No unnecessary words, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and existence of an output schema, the description covers parameter meaning adequately but fails to provide usage context or behavioral detail. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but lacks depth for unannotated, uncovered parameters.

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 description provides brief semantics for each parameter (e.g., prefix example, start meaning, digits padding, position hint), adding value beyond the schema which has no descriptions. However, it lacks constraints (e.g., allowed range for start/digits, valid position values) and does not fully compensate for 0% schema coverage.

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') and the resource ('Bates numbering stamp') and target ('document footer'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like add_bookmark or add_comment, though it could elaborate on what Bates numbering entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., edit_header_footer, set_header_row) or prerequisites (e.g., document must have a footer). The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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