add_heading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool adds a heading with formatting, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this modifies the document in-place, what happens if the filename doesn't exist, whether formatting overrides existing styles, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral information before the parameter details.

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 8 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does an excellent job with parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a document mutation tool, it should address file handling, error conditions, and return values. The parameter coverage is strong, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters. Each parameter is named and explained with practical examples (e.g., 'level: Heading level (1-9)', 'font_name: Font family (e.g., 'Helvetica')'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Add a heading'), target resource ('to a Word document'), and scope ('with optional formatting'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'add_paragraph' or 'add_table' by focusing specifically on heading creation with formatting options.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for document manipulation (e.g., 'add_paragraph', 'format_text', 'create_custom_style'), there's no indication of when a heading is preferred over other text elements or how this tool relates to similar formatting operations.

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