set_odd_even_headers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the setting affects even-numbered pages and is stored in word/settings.xml. It could mention side effects or prerequisites, but it is largely transparent.

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, with two sentences plus an Args/Returns structure. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value. The output schema is indicated, and the returns line provides the expected JSON format. 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. The Args section clearly explains that 'True' enables and 'False' disables, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type boolean.

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 verb 'Enable or disable' and the specific resource 'different odd/even page headers globally'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_different_first_page' by specifying 'globally' and 'document-level setting'.

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 says it's a global document-level setting, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools such as 'set_different_first_page'. However, the context of siblings implies the distinction, and the description provides good context for when to use it.

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