set_odd_even_headers

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

The description discloses that the setting is document-level, stored in word/settings.xml, and explains the effect (even-numbered pages can use different headers). It also explicitly describes the return value. Minor omission: does not mention side effects on existing headers or inversibility, but the behavior is adequately conveyed for a simple toggle.

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 (three short paragraphs), front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured logically: purpose, explanation, parameter, return value. No extraneous information.

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 (one boolean parameter), the description covers the domain, behavior, parameter semantics, and return value completely. The output schema is also implied in the returns section, making the tool easy to understand and use.

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 explicitly documents the parameter 'enabled' with its meaning ('True to enable, False to disable'), which is absent from the input schema (only title 'Enabled'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds clarity.

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'), the resource ('different odd/even page headers'), and the scope ('globally'). It also adds context about being a document-level setting stored in word/settings.xml, distinguishing it from similar tools like 'set_different_first_page'.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to control odd/even headers globally) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'set_different_first_page' or 'edit_header_footer'. No guidance on when not to use it.

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