update_doc_headers_footers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content), permissions required, or whether the operation is reversible. The dry_run parameter is helpful but insufficient.

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 well-structured as a docstring with distinct sections (short summary, Args, Returns). It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement would be to condense parameter lines.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate guidance for typical use but lacks details on error handling, access requirements, or interaction with existing headers/footers. The dry_run parameter adds some completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but meaningful explanations for each parameter, including the acceptable values for 'header_footer_type'. This adds significant value over 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 ('Updates') and the resource ('headers or footers in a Google Doc'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'update_google_doc' which imply broader document changes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_update_doc' or 'insert_doc_elements'. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer context.

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