edit_header_footer

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: tracked mode records deletion/insertion, direct mode replaces without markup, and author parameter is only relevant when tracked=True. It also mentions optional document handle for session isolation. However, it does not state whether the document must be open or what happens if the old_text is not found.

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 well-structured with a concise summary, parameter details, and clear separation of tracked vs direct behavior. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, though the parameter listing could be slightly more compact.

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 description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks details about error handling (e.g., missing old_text, non-existent location) and does not explain the return value or output schema. Given the output schema exists, the completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description includes a detailed Args section that explains all six parameters, including their meaning and default values. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding significant value beyond the bare input 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 tool edits text in a header or footer, specifying the action and target. It distinguishes between tracked and direct modes, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like replace_text that could also modify text in other parts of the document.

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 guidance on when to use tracked=True vs tracked=False, explaining the tracking behavior. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives like replace_text or delete_header for achieving similar goals, leaving the agent without explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use context relative to siblings.

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