set_different_first_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the effect (enable/disable different first page) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or prerequisites beyond using get_sections. For a simple toggle, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections, and presents the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (2 required boolean/integer parameters, output schema included), the description fully covers what the tool does, its parameters, and return value. No gaps remain.

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 explains both parameters in an Args section: section_index (zero-based, use get_sections) and enabled (true/false). This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides types and titles.

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 'Enable or disable a different first-page header/footer for a section.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_odd_even_headers by focusing on the first page.

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 explains when to use the tool (to have a unique header/footer on the first page) and how to find the section_index using get_sections. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but provides sufficient context.

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