insert_page_number_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., paragraph must exist), whether existing content is overwritten, or whether the field auto-updates. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key action. However, the 'Args:' section is redundant with the parameter definition, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, no wasted sentences.

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 (context signals indicate true), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks completeness regarding error handling (invalid para_id) and post-insertion state. Adequate for a simple mutation but leaves gaps.

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 provides only the type (string) for para_id. The description adds significant meaning by specifying the format ('w14:paraId') and role ('target paragraph'), which is essential for correct usage given 0% schema description coverage.

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 inserts a PAGE field at the end of a paragraph, specifying the exact resource (PAGE field) and location. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_field (generic) or insert_merge_field (specific to merge fields).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_date_field or insert_sequence_field. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without differentiation from similar field insertion tools.

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