bates_number

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 states the action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing footers, if it requires a saved document, or if it is reversible). The lack of such details limits the agent's ability to predict tool behavior.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, 1 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it could mention that the modification is applied to the current document or that the operation is not reversible, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all parameter meaning to the description. The description clearly explains each parameter: prefix as a string example, start as the starting number, digits as zero-padding width, and position as a hint for placement. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Add'), the resource ('Bates numbering stamp'), and the location ('to document footer'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_watermark' or 'edit_header_footer', which serve different purposes.

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, such as when to use 'insert_page_number_field' for simple page numbers. There is no mention of prerequisites, document state, or scenarios where the tool is inappropriate.

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