docs_add_footer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the footer is created and content is added separately via docs_insert_segment_text. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the meaning of footer_type, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the pointer to docs_insert_segment_text adds value without bloat.

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, and the description covers the primary use case. However, missing parameter semantics and behavioral details (e.g., footer_type) leave some gaps despite the presence of an output schema.

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%, and the description adds no explicit parameter details. 'document_id' is weakly implied by 'a doc,' but 'footer_type' is entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic context.

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 'Create a footer for a doc,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the purpose from sibling tools like docs_add_header by naming 'footer' explicitly.

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?

It provides clear workflow context: use docs_insert_segment_text to add content after creating the footer. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward creation tool.

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