add_header_footer

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

The description discloses the core behavior (adding headers/footers) and the placeholder feature, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not mention side effects like whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, nor does it address output behavior.

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, consisting of two efficient sentences. It front-loads the primary action and includes only relevant information about placeholders, with no wasted words.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward tool, and the schema covers all parameters. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description could have provided more context on output behavior or side effects, which is a notable gap.

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 provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters, including placeholder usage, achieving 100% coverage. The description only reiterates the placeholder feature, adding minimal semantic value beyond the 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 action ('Add header and/or footer text') and the target ('each page'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like watermark or page_number, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among the many PDF editing siblings.

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