edit_header_footer

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions tracked changes and that location matches the first found header/footer, but lacks details on case sensitivity, error handling (e.g., old_text not found), scope (all sections?), and the nature of the modification (text run vs entire element).

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?

Very concise; each sentence is necessary. The use of an 'Args:' block clearly maps to the schema parameters without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers all parameters, mentions tracked changes and first-match behavior, and is reasonably complete for a targeted editing tool. Minor gaps in behavioral transparency prevent a 5.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: location as 'header' or 'footer', old_text and new_text as find/replace, and author as revision author. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Edit text in a header or footer with tracked changes.' It specifies the resource (header/footer) and distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_text or delete_text by targeting a specific location and including tracked changes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_headers_footers, insert_text) or prerequisites. Does not mention cases where tracked changes are unwanted or when the header/footer might not exist.

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