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 and stored in word/settings.xml, and that it applies globally. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on existing headers), reversibility, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description could provide more behavioral context.

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 (two sentences plus Args/Returns), front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear docstring format. Every sentence adds 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?

For a simple boolean toggle with an output schema, the description covers the effect, storage location, return value, and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'enabled' is fully explained: 'True to enable different odd/even headers, False to disable.' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type and title, especially given the 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 verb 'Enable or disable' and the resource 'different odd/even page headers', specifying it's a global document-level setting. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'set_different_first_page' and 'edit_header_footer' by focusing specifically on the odd/even header toggle.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_different_first_page' or 'get_headers_footers'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should or should not be used.

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