add_word_heading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Add a heading' and lists arguments; it does not explain whether the file must already exist, whether the heading is inserted at a specific location, whether changes overwrite content, or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent without information about side effects or failure modes.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose plus a three-line arg list. Every line adds necessary information, and there is no filler or repetition. The formatting is scannable and front-loaded.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It defines parameters but omits behavioral context such as whether an existing .docx is required, where the heading is added, and what the caller can expect in the response. An agent has enough to guess the call, but not enough to use it safely in all cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters, and it does: path is 'Path to the .docx file,' text is 'Heading text,' and level is 'Heading level 1-6.' This adds a useful range constraint for level that the schema does not provide. It doesn't add deeper constraints like path format or heading style, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Add a heading to a Word document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling mutation tools like add_word_paragraph, add_word_table, and add_word_list by targeting the heading resource. The argument list confirms the expected inputs.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_word_paragraph or add_word_list. It only implies usage: use it when a heading is needed in a Word document. There is no 'when not to use' or prerequisite guidance.

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