Configure Header and Footer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Configures', without detailing whether the tool modifies an existing document, overwrites existing headers/footers, or what happens if the file is missing. No side effects, prerequisites, or return behavior are disclosed, making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning a high score for conciseness and clear structure.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide critical context. It does not mention that the tool likely requires an existing document, whether it will overwrite existing headers/footers, or what the return value (if any) is. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity and the expectations set by the 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the Arabic page numbering format ('صفحة X من Y'), which clarifies how the 'includePageNumbers' parameter behaves and what the output will look like. This context helps the agent understand the tool's output format.

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 tool's function: configuring document header and footer with custom text and Arabic page numbering. It uses a specific verb ('Configures') and resource ('document header and footer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other document aspects (paragraphs, headings, tables, etc.).

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 implies when to use this tool (when header/footer configuration is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools like 'add_paragraph_to_document' or 'modify_word_xml_element' are not mentioned as alternatives, leaving usage context implicit.

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