set_different_first_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the effect of enabling/disabling and that it applies per section. It does not disclose side effects or required permissions, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the most important information, and every sentence contributes value 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 the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and usage. The Returns section matches the output schema, providing complete context.

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, but the description's Args section explains both parameters in detail: section_index is zero-based with a hint to use get_sections, and enabled is described with booleans. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'a different first-page header/footer for a section'. It distinguishes this tool from related siblings like set_odd_even_headers by focusing specifically on first-page differentiation.

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 explicit guidance for the section_index parameter by recommending 'use get_sections to find it'. It implies the tool should be used when the user wants a unique first-page header/footer. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative approaches.

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