docs_add_header

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose side effects and behavior. It only says 'Create a header' without explaining whether an existing header is overwritten, required permissions, or what the response contains. Significant transparency gaps remain.

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 two sentences with no redundant or filler content. The cross-reference to docs_insert_segment_text is a valuable addition that earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema explanation, the description overlooks prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and return values. It is barely sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke correctly.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for document_id or header_type. The mention of 'header' does not clarify the meaning or default behavior of header_type, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 'Create a header for a doc' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_add_footer. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 instruction to use docs_insert_segment_text for adding content implies a typical workflow but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It provides some directional guidance, but not comprehensive usage context.

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