edit_header_footer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default tracked behavior, the author dependency, the 'first found' matching rule, and document_handle for session isolation. Missing details on failure cases (e.g., old_text not found) but adequate.

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 structured with a summary sentence, a behavioral paragraph, and an argument list. It is fairly concise for the number of parameters, though the explanation of tracked behavior could be 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 output schema exists (though not shown) so return values need not be explained. The description covers location, text replacement, revision tracking, and session isolation. It lacks guidance on case sensitivity or wildcards for old_text, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides a clear parameter list with explanations for all 6 parameters, including the enum-like options for location and the conditional use of author.

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 starts with 'Edit text in a header or footer.' which clearly states the action and resource. It specifies the two possible locations and distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_header or get_headers_footers.

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?

It explains the tracked parameter behavior and when to use direct replacement vs tracked changes. The author parameter context is given. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for replacing text in the body.

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